Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
Even among traditionally Republican voters, Environmentalism ranks pretty high. You may want to tell them they're practicing idolatry, G-Man...

 Quote:
Beliefnet poll of evangelicals: More value environment over abortion?

Generally speaking, however, evangelicals ranked traditionally progressive or Democratic causes as more important than traditionally conservative or Republican ones. Twenty three percent said their views had become less positive about Republicans, twice the number who said they’d soured on Democrats, though half of respondents said they had become less positive about both parties…

Combining those who labeled an issue “most important” or “very important,” the results were:

The economy (85%)
Cleaning up government (85%)
Reducing poverty (80%)
Improving public education/access to health care (78%)
Protecting the environment (70%)
Ending torture (68%)
Ending Iraq war (67%)
Ending abortion (61%)
Combating sex and violence in the media and entertainment (59%)
Illegal immigration (59%)
Stopping gay marriage (49%)
Helping Africa (48%)
Winning Iraq war (46%)
Fighting Islamic radicalism (58%)

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Well, you said they "evangelicals."

Praise Father Algore!

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
Well, you said they "evangelicals."

Praise Father Algore!


Me Tarzan.

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
 Originally Posted By: whomod
Even among traditionally Republican voters, Environmentalism ranks pretty high. You may want to tell them they're practicing idolatry, G-Man...

 Quote:
Beliefnet poll of evangelicals: More value environment over abortion?

Generally speaking, however, evangelicals ranked traditionally progressive or Democratic causes as more important than traditionally conservative or Republican ones. Twenty three percent said their views had become less positive about Republicans, twice the number who said they’d soured on Democrats, though half of respondents said they had become less positive about both parties…

Combining those who labeled an issue “most important” or “very important,” the results were:

The economy (85%)
Cleaning up government (85%)
Reducing poverty (80%)
Improving public education/access to health care (78%)
Protecting the environment (70%)
Ending torture (68%)
Ending Iraq war (67%)
Ending abortion (61%)
Combating sex and violence in the media and entertainment (59%)
Illegal immigration (59%)
Stopping gay marriage (49%)
Helping Africa (48%)
Winning Iraq war (46%)
Fighting Islamic radicalism (58%)


but is there a one-to-one correlation between 'protecting the environment' and 'addressing global warming'? believe it or not, global warming is not THE ENVIRONMENT. there are plenty of environmental issues worthy of the concern of voters in general. it doesn't surprise me that people whose beliefs include the idea that God wants us to take care of the planet consider taking care of the planet a high priority.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Yeah, I thought about pointing out to whomod that respect for the enviroment doesn't necessarily translate into wanting to cripple the U.S. economy to shave off a few carbon molecues per year. But since whomod's point doesn't really prove I'm wrong about how people like him have a blind, near religious, faith in global warming I figured why waste the time.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge
4000+ posts
Offline
fudge
4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205


whoever said global warming wasn't good for anything?




Racks be to MisterJLA
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812
 Quote:
John Coleman wants to sue Al Gore for fraud. Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982, thinks taking legal action against Al Gore would be a great "vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming." Coleman rejects the notion that people must take drastic actions to reduce their energy use.

Speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on Monday, Coleman sharply chastised those who further global warming alarmism. Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
this guy is obviously a crackpot. it's a well known that the ice age was ended due to high energy uses by woolly mammoths, if only they had heeded the warning the earth's temperature wouldnt have increased.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Offline
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
The article goes on to say:

 Quote:
The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change. Do you think there's any merit to raising concerns about global alarmism? Would a lawsuit against Al Gore help the public determine fact from fiction?

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
well if the majority of the scientific community believes it, it must be true!



Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Didn't the majority of the scientific community once believe that blacks were mentally and otherwise inferior to whites?

Good thing people didn't just accept that majority scientific opinion.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
When I was a kid Pluto was a planet!

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Offline
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
Didn't the majority of the scientific community once believe that blacks were mentally and otherwise inferior to whites?

Good thing people didn't just accept that majority scientific opinion.

I'm not sure I ever said that people should just accept the majority opinion. In fact, I've never even said that global warming is real.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Offline
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
 Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
well if the majority of the scientific community believes it, it must be true!



Never said that it was. But if one part of an article says one scientist believes somethings false, then a second part says that the majority of scientists believes something is true, well, I think the whole article is worth quoting.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
beardguy loves Uranus!

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Offline
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203


Bow ties are coool.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
From the Associated Press comes the news that a new Study Refutes a Link Between Global Warming and Hurricanes:
  • Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

    Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

    In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

    Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

    Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

    What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

    He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

    He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

    The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Offline
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
 Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man


Bow ties are coool.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
the key phrase is "federal scientists".

Much like the current FDA and their assurances with Chinese heparin, people aren't putting much stock or faith in any government agency staffed and headed by George Bush's sycophants.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
that's the second time you've used that word in two days, how are the G.E.D. classes going?

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
 Originally Posted By: whomod
the key phrase is "federal scientists"... blah blah blah... sycophants...


 Originally Posted By: the G-man
What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Jonah Goldberg over at National Review:
  • At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. “If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton observed, “you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”

    Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt, and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

    Environmentalists insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word “secular” no more makes you secular than using the word “Christian” automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax describes environmentalists as “secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation.” Gore, too, has been dubbed a “prophet.” A green-themed California hotel provides Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome.

    Whether or not it’s adopted the trappings of religion, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.

    It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause.

    The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjørn Lomborg, author of the book Cool It! Yet 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them. What’s cheaper — trillions to trim carbon emissions, or a push for a ban on polar bear hunting?

    Plastic grocery bags are being banned, even though they require less energy to make and recycle than paper ones.

    Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods.

    Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. Lomborg is a heretic because he treats natural-world challenges like economic ones, seeking to spend money where it will maximize good, not just good feelings among environmentalists.


All Praise Lord Highfather Algore!

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

  • It wasn't so long ago that global warmists were acting as if their alarming forecasts had already come true, even likening skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Now they are reduced to saying we really don't know if global warmism is true or not, but since the consequences are so dire if it is, we'd better just assume that it is and act accordingly.

    If this sounds familiar, perhaps you've heard of Pascal's Wager. Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French theologian and mathematician, wanted a reason to believe in God but believed that God's existence could not be proved by reason. So he argued instead that faith was a good bet.

    If you believe in God and you turn out to be right, Pascal argued, the payoff is "an infinity of an infinitely happy life." If the probability of God's existing is anything greater than zero, then, the expected value of the bet is infinity, and therefore the rational thing to do is bet on God.

    (In the case of global warming cultists), if nonbelievers are wrong about global warmism, the results will be "catastrophic." Therefore, believing in global warmism is a good bet regardless of the actual probability that it is true.

    One problem with Pascal's Wager is that assuming an infinite payoff is a cheat of sorts--one that renders calculations of expected value nonsensical. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, it turns out that flipping a coin and believing in God only if it comes up heads also yields an infinite expected value.

    (A global warming cultist) cheats in the same way. By raising the specter of "catastrophic" consequences, he evades the question of just how probable those results are.

    Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that it presupposes only two possibilities: Either God exists more or less as Christians conceive of him, or he doesn't exist at all. But from a standpoint of pure logic, this is completely arbitrary. What if God exists and it is Muslims or Mormons or atheists who go to heaven?

    (The global warming cultist's) thinking is similarly binary: Either global warming is true and the stakes are enormous, or it isn't and they are trivial. But how do we know that global warming won't turn out to be beneficial, or that efforts to avert it won't have catastrophic consequences?

    One difference between Pascal's Wager and (the enviro-wacko)'s is that whereas Pascal was making a case for individuals to embrace faith, (the wacko) is arguing for collective action--which is to say, he wishes to use the power of government to impose his beliefs on others.

    By imploring political leaders to make a bet on speculative predictions of catastrophe, (the global warming cultist) has made an important concession: that current scientific knowledge is insufficient to justify the "action" he advocates.


Another example of how global warming alarmists debate this in religious terms.

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 95
25+ posts
Offline
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 95
Wrong. The evidence is overwhelming among people who know what they're talking about (i.e., climatologists rather than hired engineers, Weather Channel CEOs, and right-wing pundits who see politics in every new scientific finding).

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/232046/03

And the potential downside of sudden, massive climate shift? Gee, it's only resulted in massive exctinctions all the OTHER times it's happened, so let's assume it'll be smooth and easy this time.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469

And you'll note this is not in religious terms. Hysteria WITHOUT evidence is religion--justifiable concern BASED ON evdence is logic, no matter how inconvenient that truth may be.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Calybos

All Praise the Lord Highfather Algore and burn the heretics!

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: Calybos
Wrong. The evidence is overwhelming among people who know what they're talking about (i.e., climatologists rather than hired engineers, Weather Channel CEOs, and right-wing pundits who see politics in every new scientific finding).



climatologists? i wonder how much money this global warming thing brings their way? i mean pre-global warming fad, not much money spent on it. now there's more and more money, the more they scare people.


we got trouble, right here in river city!

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 95
25+ posts
Offline
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 95
That's called an "ad hominem"--since you can't debate the science, you impugn the motives. Doesn't work.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
you can't debate a turd, doesn't mean the turd is right....


btw your response was ad hominem. pathetic.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/world/europe/07solar.html?no_interstitial
 Quote:
This fairy-tale town is stuck in the middle of a utopian struggle over renewable energy. The town council’s decision to require solar-heating panels has thrown Marburg into a vehement debate over the boundaries of ecological good citizenship and led opponents to charge that their genteel town has turned into a “green dictatorship.”

The town council took the significant step in June of moving from merely encouraging citizens to install solar panels to making them an obligation. The ordinance, the first of its kind in Germany, will require solar panels not only on new buildings, which fewer people oppose, but also on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs.

To give the regulation teeth, a fine of 1,000 euros, about $1,500, awaits those who do not comply.

Critics howled that the rule, which is to go into effect on Oct. 1, constituted an attack on the rights of property owners. The regional government in Giessen stepped in and warned that it would overturn the rule.

City officials in Marburg said, in turn, that they would take their case either to administrative court or all the way to the Hessian state capital, where they would try to get the state building code changed to protect their ordinance from officials in Giessen.

In the middle of this political chess match sit homeowners like Götz Schönherr.

From his deck, Mr. Schönherr can see the town’s famous hilltop Gothic castle as well as two of its three power-generating windmills. On his roof, a solar panel glints in the sunlight. He already uses the solar energy to heat his water, which has allowed him to turn off his boiler for roughly six months a year, a boon for his pocketbook but a decision he said he made for the sake of the environment.

And yet Mr. Schönherr opposes the new ordinance.

Mr. Schönherr had hoped to reinsulate his home, but to do so, and to satisfy the solar regulation, he would have to install a larger solar panel. It would cost him close to $8,000.

“That leads, in my case, and I would think in other cases as well, that people say, ‘Well, let’s just not reinsulate the roof,’ ” Mr. Schönherr said. “So it’s absolutely counterproductive.”

Officials in Giessen agree. “We have no problem with the use of solar energy,” said Manfred Kersten, press spokesman for the regional government in Giessen, “but this was a poorly constructed ordinance.”

Germany is one of the world’s top champions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy. Thanks to hefty federal subsidies, the country is by far the largest market for photovoltaic systems, which convert sunlight into electricity.

Marburg, a historic university town where the Brothers Grimm once studied, is a model of enlightened energy production and consumption. In addition to the windmills and solar installations, the town’s utility company buys hydroelectric power from Austria, is transitioning its fleet of buses and other vehicles to natural gas and even lights footpaths with solar-powered lamps.

As a result, the Marburg dispute sometimes feels like an argument between the enlightened environmentalists and the really enlightened environmentalists.

“Marburg is already a leader when it comes to the use of solar energy, but up until now they’ve always tried to convince people rather than forcing them,” said Hermann Uchtmann, the opposition politician behind the “green dictatorship” charge who leads a local citizens political group, the Marburger Bürgerliste.

Like Mr. Schönherr, who is a member of the group, Mr. Uchtmann hardly fits the predictable mold of the Luddite opponent of renewable energy. He is a chemist at the local university who once built a solar-powered desalinization station for the town’s sister city, Sfax, Tunisia.

“It’s unfortunate that they decided to compel people, because I think you breed opponents that way rather than friends of solar energy,” Mr. Uchtmann said. He said he found the demands too invasive for existing homes, especially in the case of older citizens who might not live long enough to justify the upfront costs of installing the solar systems.

“I’m right up against the border myself,” said Mr. Uchtmann, who is 64. But he said he could support a solar-heating requirement for new buildings.

Because the town of 80,000 has a level population and relatively few new homes are built here, restricting the measure to new construction would not go far enough for the politicians behind it.

“We have a serious energy problem with the older homes,” Marburg’s deputy mayor, Franz Kahle, said in an interview at the historic town hall on the city’s colorful market square. To make a real leap forward, he said, a dramatic step was necessary.

“Before, solar installations were the exception and their absence was the rule,” Mr. Kahle said. “We want to get to the point where the opposite is the case.”

He pointed out that building codes constantly dictated what property owners could and could not do with their homes and said that the solar regulation already offered exceptions for cases of hardship or alternatives for those living in the shadiest spots.

Marburg’s law has attracted attention nationwide as a model for environmentally active politicians.

“What they are doing in Marburg is good and progressive, and we, and other cities, need to move forward with similar initiatives as well,” said Birgit Simon, deputy mayor of Offenbach am Main and a member of the Green Party. She said she hoped a coalition of left-of-center parties in the state Parliament could change the building codes to make the Marburg ordinance sustainable and imitable.

Among Marburgers interviewed one sunny afternoon this week, there was near universal support for the ordinance’s goals but an almost equal level of confusion about its exact nature.

“In principle, it’s a really good idea,” said Cornelia Janus, 35, who works at the university. But she questioned whether the costs might be too high and whether historic buildings and monuments would be protected.

“For a city like Marburg,” she said, gazing toward the churches and the castle arrayed along the hillside, which draw tourists from around the world, “that’s pretty important too.”


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001
Likes: 1
PJP Offline
We already are
15000+ posts
Offline
We already are
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001
Likes: 1
 Originally Posted By: Calybos
That's called an "ad hominem"--since you can't debate the science, you impugn the motives. Doesn't work.
I see the new ID you got whomod came with a dicktionary as well. I bet you paid extra for that.












emphasis on the dick

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
rex Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Offline
Who will I break next?
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Black mustachio already admitted to being that alt. Which probably means it is whomod as well. Those guys are way too incestuous with their alts.


November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
he was be facetious Jefferey.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
From Cornell University comes news of a study that suggests "global warming predictions are overestimated."

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
So? We should still make energy so expensive the poor cant afford it.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Eat Kangaroos to Fight Global Warming
  • Of all the ideas developed to combat the climate crisis, George Wilson of Australian Wildlife Services may have the least intuitive: eating more kangaroos. In a paper published in June by the U.S.-based Society for Conservation Biology, however, he explains that 11 percent of Australia’s total greenhouse-gas emissions come from the methane produced by the rumen of cattle and sheep. “It’s been long known that kangaroos don’t produce methane,” Wilson says, noting that kangaroos’ stomachs have different microorganisms to ferment their food. “I began to speculate, What if we managed the kangaroo population up and the cattle population down?”

    Kangaroo is a specialty meat, gamy in taste, that is already available in some restaurants and many grocery stores in Australia. Wilson calculated that if by 2020 the kangaroo population was managed upward from its current 35 million to 175 million — and if Australia could remove 36 million sheep and 7 million cattle from production — the country would see a reduction of 16 megatons of greenhouse-gas emissions, 3 percent of its national total.

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
yay quick-fix solutions!


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
I wonder which would be better: BBQ sauce or ketchup?


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5