Obama: Open mouth, insert foot, chew vigorously..... again

[Little-Acorn]

As long as Barack Obama, and various other highly-placed Democrats, keep supporting the ludicrous pronouncements of Junk Science such as "man-made Global Warming", he will continue to make a fool of himself.

Keep up the good work, Barry! :lol:

------------------------------------------------------

http://opinionjournal.com

from "Best of the Web"
by James Taranto

• "As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic . . ."--Barack Obama, Berlin, July 24, 2008

• "New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago. In most years, there are open waters in the area north of the archipelago in July month. Studies from this year however show that the area is covered by ice, the Meteorological Institute writes in a press release."--Barents Observer (Kirkenes, Norway), July 24, 2008

[avatar4321]

hardly surprising to me.

[retiredman]

other reports suggest that the north pole may be clear of ice this summer for the first time in recorded history.

hmmmmm

[avatar4321]

other reports suggest that the north pole may be clear of ice this summer for the first time in recorded history.

hmmmmm

This report states that there is more ice than usual. So you refer to the the reports that say the north pole may be clear of ice this summer forthe first time in recorded history. I guess we will just have to make a decision here.

Do we trust the reports of what actually is happening or the reports of what may happen?

[retiredman]

This report states that there is more ice than usual. So you refer to the the reports that say the north pole may be clear of ice this summer forthe first time in recorded history. I guess we will just have to make a decision here.

Do we trust the reports of what actually is happening or the reports of what may happen?

or do we simply wait and see?

[Hobbit]

other reports suggest that the north pole may be clear of ice this summer for the first time in recorded history.

hmmmmm

Next time, post a link. I about jumped on you for a fallacy by anonymous authority before doing my own research and finding that, yes, a few people were claiming that the northern polar cap would be gone by the end of the summer. However, you might do well to do similar research into the fact that the southern cap is growing thicker every year. Wonder how the northern cap could be shrinking while the southern cap is growing? It couldn't be global or else both would be doing the same thing. Could it possibly be the growing number of active volcanoes popping up under the cap? Maybe?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299718849952830

[Psychoblues]

Here are some facts about global warming and misrepresentations made by cynics that do not understand how to do credible research:

http://www.factcheck.org/misleading-ads/scientist_to_cei_you_used_my_research.html

The article is well foot noted so you can go see for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hobbit]

Here are some facts about global warming and misrepresentations made by cynics that do not understand how to do credible research:

http://www.factcheck.org/misleading-ads/scientist_to_cei_you_used_my_research.html

The article is well foot noted so you can go see for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!

A: I don't trust the source. I checked the front page and most of it is nitpicking everything that's ever come out of McCain's mouth.

B: I read the whole link, and the scientist concludes that the Antarctic ice is, in fact, growing...but he chalks that one up to global warming, too. It's another piece of junk where somebody screaming for attention claims that if anything changes anywhere, it's caused by global warming. For years, you people claimed that the Antarctic shelf was shrinking due to global warming. When that turned out to be a damn lie, you started claiming that it was growing because of global warming. You've set up your argument such that anything and everything proves you right and you'll be long dead before you can be proven wrong. It's a scam.

[Psychoblues]

You're not much on back checking or fact checking are you, hibbit? The source is as credible as it gets and backed up by the best scientists in the world. The footnotes lead you to much more comprehensive information but you ain't into education, are you?




A: I don't trust the source. I checked the front page and most of it is nitpicking everything that's ever come out of McCain's mouth.

B: I read the whole link, and the scientist concludes that the Antarctic ice is, in fact, growing...but he chalks that one up to global warming, too. It's another piece of junk where somebody screaming for attention claims that if anything changes anywhere, it's caused by global warming. For years, you people claimed that the Antarctic shelf was shrinking due to global warming. When that turned out to be a damn lie, you started claiming that it was growing because of global warming. You've set up your argument such that anything and everything proves you right and you'll be long dead before you can be proven wrong. It's a scam.

You are the scam, hibbit. I can live with that if you can.

[DragonStryk72]

by this, you mean the 'best' that agree with his theory, yes?

Hobbit (learn to spell, or learn manners and respect if you were spellling like that on purpose) has a point here. Now, do I agree fully that global warming is bs? No, I don't. We've done far too much to this planet's ecosystems to not have had some form of negative effect.

However, trying to keep slapping down everything bad that happens as global warming, and when something good starts happening, start spinning it as bad to prop up an argument is against scientific method. Yes, scientists, like most people, hate to be proven wrong, and will often rationalize as opposed to admit being incorrect. And to paraphrase Dumbledore: "And, being rather cleverer than most, my mistakes are resultingly bigger."

How much factchecking did you do Psycho? Where are the theories that stand counter to his conclusions, that we might weigh their merits side by side? But you won't answer that, just like you don't really answer anything else that actually hits a mark.

[Psychoblues]

There are scientists that disagree referenced in the article, ds'72. You didn't read it, did you? I didn't think so. Here it is again so maybe you can catch up with the conversation. This really is a nonpartisan and objective fact checking source. But, sometimes the truth hurts. Here it is:


http://www.factcheck.org/misleading-ads/scientist_to_cei_you_used_my_research.html

Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!

[theHawk]

other reports suggest that the north pole may be clear of ice this summer for the first time in recorded history.

hmmmmm

Even if that was true, who cares? Our planet has already naturally gone through warmer times than we have now, and it still did just fine. To think that we can somehow control the planetary climate or change it is just delusional.

[retiredman]

Even if that was true, who cares? Our planet has already naturally gone through warmer times than we have now, and it still did just fine. To think that we can somehow control the planetary climate or change it is just delusional.

to think that we can shit in our nest and not suffer any consequences is just delusional.

[theHawk]

to think that we can shit in our nest and not suffer any consequences is just delusional.

If you're wallowing in your own feces I'd say thats your problem, not mine.

[avatar4321]

to think that we can shit in our nest and not suffer any consequences is just delusional.

Well, I don't know about your situation. But I use a toilet when i need to take a crap. Indoor plumbing. It's pretty good. I highly recommend it.

[retiredman]

acting as if you don't understand well known idiomatic expressions as a means of ducking debate is pretty weak, you two.:lame2:

[theHawk]

acting as if you don't understand well known idiomatic expressions as a means of ducking debate is pretty weak, you two.:lame2:

Ducking the debate is exactly what you are doing. You failed to address my post.

Your lame expression has nothing to do with what I said.

[avatar4321]

acting as if you don't understand well known idiomatic expressions as a means of ducking debate is pretty weak, you two.:lame2:

It takes more than an idiomatic expression to create a debate. If you've got an actual argument go ahead. But if you are just going to complain about living in your own feces... than I can't really help you with anything other than maybe sending you a shovel.

[Yurt]

to think that we can shit in our nest and not suffer any consequences is just delusional.

so humans should stop going number 2?

[retiredman]

It takes more than an idiomatic expression to create a debate. If you've got an actual argument go ahead. But if you are just going to complain about living in your own feces... than I can't really help you with anything other than maybe sending you a shovel.

this is the Hawk's claom:

To think that we can somehow control the planetary climate or change it is just delusional.

do you consider that "debate"?

[Little-Acorn]

As long as Barack Obama, and various other highly-placed Democrats, keep supporting the ludicrous pronouncements of Junk Science such as "man-made Global Warming", he will continue to make a fool of himself.

Keep up the good work, Barry! :lol:

------------------------------------------------------

http://opinionjournal.com

from "Best of the Web"
by James Taranto

• "As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic . . ."--Barack Obama, Berlin, July 24, 2008



As I said in the original post, as long as various pompous Democrats keep supporting the silly and unsupported theories such as "man-made global warming", they will keep looking like the fools and dupes they are.

Still no one has preseted any evidence showing that man has affected Earth's climate in the past, or will have any way to affect it in the future. You'd never know that from the pronouncements of Barack Obama, Al Gore, and other priests of the mysterious cult of Global Warming, who keep blaming man for the warming, or cooling, of the globe, whichever is happening this week.

Watching the loony leftists on this board try to change the discussion to whether the globe is warming or cooling, from the original topic of whether man has anything to do with it, is even funnier. These people know when they're licked. But they think everyone else is far stupider, and can't see the leftists are licked, themselves... and so can be snowed by camouflage disguising tactical retreats.

[avatar4321]

this is the Hawk's claom:

To think that we can somehow control the planetary climate or change it is just delusional.

do you consider that "debate"?

actually yes. That's a statement that can be discuseed as to whether its true or not.

Your statement on feces, however, isnt. No one is going to suggest that its proper to live in feces. I certainly dont live in such a mess. It's just completely irrelevant to a discussion on junk science that says regardless of whether the tempature goes up or down that we are destroying the world without demonstrating any sort of link. Especially when all the magical cures for it just happen to be the failed socialist programs that the people have been rejecting for decades.

If you dont want to seriously discuss the issue. Why should I?

[retiredman]

actually yes. That's a statement that can be discuseed as to whether its true or not.

Your statement on feces, however, isnt. No one is going to suggest that its proper to live in feces. I certainly dont live in such a mess. It's just completely irrelevant to a discussion on junk science that says regardless of whether the tempature goes up or down that we are destroying the world without demonstrating any sort of link. Especially when all the magical cures for it just happen to be the failed socialist programs that the people have been rejecting for decades.

If you dont want to seriously discuss the issue. Why should I?

if you want to take the idiomatic phrase "shit in one's nest" and use it to avoid debate, have fun

[Little-Acorn]

If you dont want to seriously discuss the issue. Why should I?
Ummm, because that was what the thread was for?

Why you keep playing footsie with people like mfm and enable him to hijack the thread into a discussion of fecal matter, is beyond me. Maybe you two could rent a motel room where you can do what you both seem to want to, in private? Or at least start your own thread where you can discuss each others' feces to your heart's content, and people interested in the subject could join you there.

Then maybe decent folks here can get some discussion done on the actual subject of this thread, do you think? What a concept! :clap:

[Yurt]

touchy touchy

[avatar4321]

Ummm, because that was what the thread was for?

Why you keep playing footsie with people like mfm and enable him to hijack the thread into a discussion of fecal matter, is beyond me. Maybe you two could rent a motel room where you can do what you both seem to want to, in private? Or at least start your own thread where you can discuss each others' feces to your heart's content, and people interested in the subject could join you there.

Then maybe decent folks here can get some discussion done on the actual subject of this thread, do you think? What a concept! :clap:

I have seriously discussed the topic. I am simply tired of people avoiding discusion so im using humor to keep myself entertained while pointing it out.

My next question is will the global warming nuts admit they are wrong when the summer ends and the ice is still on the north pole?

[retiredman]

I have seriously discussed the topic. I am simply tired of people avoiding discusion so im using humor to keep myself entertained while pointing it out.

My next question is will the global warming nuts admit they are wrong when the summer ends and the ice is still on the north pole?

admit I was wrong about what? that man has contributed to fouling the planet? no...

I will admit that the predictions of an ice-free north pole were incorrect, if that turns out to be the case.

[Little-Acorn]

admit I was wrong about what? that man has contributed to fouling the planet? no...

Isn't that cute? He's still at it. Now trying to pretend the "debate" was over whether man was "fouling the planet", rather than whether man was changing the climate or could change it in the future.

Little mfm has a distinct talent for running away while going nowhere. Who can blame him?

[retiredman]

Isn't that cute? He's still at it. Now trying to pretend the "debate" was over whether man was "fouling the planet", rather than whether man was changing the climate or could change it in the future.

Little mfm has a distinct talent for running away while going nowhere. Who can blame him?


if one agrees that man has significantly fouled the plane - and it appears that you do, I do not see how it is that much of a stretch to imagine that all that "foul behavior" might have deleterious effects on our climate....nor is it much of a stretch to imagine that reducing or stopping the "foul behavior" might, in fact, reverse or at least retard those same deleterious effects.

[Little-Acorn]

I do not see how it is that much of a stretch to imagine...

...nor is it much of a stretch to imagine....
You're asking government to take over and regulate huge portions of the economy. Everything that emits heat, or carbon, or pollution etc.

When you get past the stage of "imagining" what harm is being done, what part of it is caused by man, and what man can do about it, let me know.

Guesswork won't cut it. Yet that's all we've seen from the usual Global-warming hysterics, on and off this board.

[retiredman]

You're asking government to take over and regulate huge portions of the economy. Everything that emits heat, or carbon, or pollution etc.

When you get past the stage of "imagining" what harm is being done, what part of it is caused by man, and what man can do about it, let me know.

Guesswork won't cut it. Yet that's all we've seen from the usual Global-warming hysterics, on and off this board.


either link up a post of mine where I have asked for "government to take over and regulate huge portions of the economy. Everything that emits heat, or carbon, or pollution etc." or quit fucking putting words in my mouth. OK?

[Hobbit]

if one agrees that man has significantly fouled the plane - and it appears that you do, I do not see how it is that much of a stretch to imagine that all that "foul behavior" might have deleterious effects on our climate....nor is it much of a stretch to imagine that reducing or stopping the "foul behavior" might, in fact, reverse or at least retard those same deleterious effects.

You mean like maybe this post, wherein you advocate reducing or stopping said 'foul behavior?' Or do you honestly expect us to believe you meant that people should all stop what you think is foul behavior on their own, with no prowling? Riiiiiiiight.

[retiredman]

You mean like maybe this post, wherein you advocate reducing or stopping said 'foul behavior?' Or do you honestly expect us to believe you meant that people should all stop what you think is foul behavior on their own, with no prowling? Riiiiiiiight.

so that is all you have to back up the bullshit that I advocate "government taking over and regulating huge portions of the economy. Everything that emits heat, or carbon, or pollution etc."

riiiiiiight.

btw:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/feb/02/uknews.glaciers

[Little-Acorn]

If I may interrupt this thread (the 38th one this month that degenerated to "What did mfm say and when did he say it" as he tried to dodge the actual subject of the thread) for a moment...

Hopefully Barack Obama will continue to push his Manmade Global Warming poppycock as vigorously and publicly as he has here. As refutations flow in from actual scientists, Obama will look more and more like the hysterical wishful-thinker that he is (and most other MGW fanatics are). The more apparent that becomes, the fewer people will vote for him, and the better off the country will be.

We now return you to your ever-so-useful discussion of whether mfm said this or that, and whether various board members are idiots. Enjoy.

[retiredman]

the guardian link tends to disputeyour claim that the antarctic ice cap is growing bigger. any comment?

and if you can't substantiate your bloviating rhetoric, perhaps you should dial it back!

[red states rule]

the guardian link tends to disputeyour claim that the antarctic ice cap is growing bigger. any comment?

and if you can't substantiate your bloviating rhetoric, perhaps you should dial it back!

September 15, 2007
Expanding ice caps...
John Hinderaker:

You've no doubt read about the shrinking ice cap at the North Pole, and the plight of the polar bears there. It's less likely that you've heard that in the meantime, the ice cap at the South Pole has been expanding, and just recently reached its largest extent since measurements began in 1979.

I compared Google News searches for "ice cap 'north pole'" and "ice cap 'south pole.'" The North Pole stories were all about the shrinking ice cap there as evidence of global warming. I couldn't find a single news story about the expanding ice cap at the South Pole. This strikes me as a pretty good illustration of how the conventional story line about Earth's climate drives news reporting...
Neither North nor South Poles are definitive evidence in themselves. Climate change would not be linear. But this is sure powerful evidence of what a bunch of frauds our news-media are.

The whole globo-warming debate is warped because a LOT of things are not being mentioned. Things that would cause the little people—you and me— to possibly fail to reach the conclusions deemed appropriate by our elite would-be masters. For instance, 99% of the Greenhouse Effect on Earth is caused by water vapor. And lucky we are that it is; we'd be pretty cold without it. We'd all be living in the "Antarctic."

http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/003023.html

[retiredman]

I compared Google News searches for "ice cap 'north pole'" and "ice cap 'south pole.'" The North Pole stories were all about the shrinking ice cap there as evidence of global warming. I couldn't find a single news story about the expanding ice cap at the South Pole.]

In fact, the guardian article clearly discusses the shinking ice cap at the SOUTH pole.

[red states rule]

In fact, the guardian article clearly discusses the shinking ice cap at the SOUTH pole.

Seems the enviro wackos can't keep their facts straight :laugh2:

As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows
Scientists are puzzled, but the phenomenon seems to fit the latest global-warming models.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html

[retiredman]

Seems the enviro wackos can't keep their facts straight :laugh2:

As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows
Scientists are puzzled, but the phenomenon seems to fit the latest global-warming models.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html

and the guardian article disputes that one too! why not dispove the guardian article with something other than newspaper articles and op ed pieces? Why not visit some scientific sites and get their take on whether the antarctic ice cap is growing or shrinking?

[red states rule]

and the guardian article disputes that one too! why not dispove the guardian article with something other than newspaper articles and op ed pieces? Why not visit some scientific sites and get their take on whether the antarctic ice cap is growing or shrinking?


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/6407.jpg

[Yurt]

If I may interrupt this thread (the 38th one this month that degenerated to "What did mfm say and when did he say it" as he tried to dodge the actual subject of the thread) for a moment...

Hopefully Barack Obama will continue to push his Manmade Global Warming poppycock as vigorously and publicly as he has here. As refutations flow in from actual scientists, Obama will look more and more like the hysterical wishful-thinker that he is (and most other MGW fanatics are). The more apparent that becomes, the fewer people will vote for him, and the better off the country will be.

We now return you to your ever-so-useful discussion of whether mfm said this or that, and whether various board members are idiots. Enjoy.

unfortunately, i don't expect the left to pay attention to scientists that do not support their views...i have seen libs dismiss outright the fact that some 30,000 scientists signed a petition (or so i read) that disputed teh myth of manmade global warming

global warming is big bucks and the racket is so great that libs are more than willing to pay extra taxes voluntarily in order to combat this. goebbels would be proud.

[retiredman]

unfortunately, i don't expect the left to pay attention to scientists that do not support their views...i have seen libs dismiss outright the fact that some 30,000 scientists signed a petition (or so i read) that disputed teh myth of manmade global warming

global warming is big bucks and the racket is so great that libs are more than willing to pay extra taxes voluntarily in order to combat this. goebbels would be proud.


:link:

[Hobbit]

and the guardian article disputes that one too! why not dispove the guardian article with something other than newspaper articles and op ed pieces? Why not visit some scientific sites and get their take on whether the antarctic ice cap is growing or shrinking?

The Guardian is a rag that lacks the journalistic integrity of the Enquirer. On any matters in which there seems to be a left/right divide, they're about as reliable as coin flip.

[retiredman]

The Guardian is a rag that lacks the journalistic integrity of the Enquirer. On any matters in which there seems to be a left/right divide, they're about as reliable as coin flip.

did you even READ the linked article? Y/N?

[Yurt]

:link:

go pound sand, you have replied to the story before and as i said:


30,000 scientists signed a petition (or so i read)

a 2 second google search brings up numerous links

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=30%2C000+scientists+signed+a+petition+&btnG=Google+Search

[retiredman]

go pound sand, you have replied to the story before and as i said:



a 2 second google search brings up numerous links

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=30%2C000+scientists+signed+a+petition+&btnG=Google+Search

how many scinetists (some of them with PhD's) do you think would sign a petitition that said that man was responsible for hastening climate change?

really. 9021 PhD's out of 31K? How many of those "scientists" even had a college degree???

[Said1]

how many scinetists (some of them with PhD's) do you think would sign a petitition that said that man was responsible for hastening climate change?

really. 90210 PhD's out of 31K? How many of those "scientists" even had a college degree???

Fixed it. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Fixed it. :laugh2:

totally! fer sure! OMG!

[Yurt]

how many scinetists (some of them with PhD's) do you think would sign a petitition that said that man was responsible for hastening climate change?

really. 9021 PhD's out of 31K? How many of those "scientists" even had a college degree???

you tell me...

are you upset that so many signed a petition against the manmade global warming theory or that i actually had links to back it up?

fine with me if you want to stick to 9000 <--- quite a number still. that is 9000 PhD scientist that don't believe the man made hype gore is selling.

[retiredman]

you tell me...

are you upset that so many signed a petition against the manmade global warming theory or that i actually had links to back it up?

fine with me if you want to stick to 9000 <--- quite a number still. that is 9000 PhD scientist that don't believe the man made hype gore is selling.


I have no idea. my guess is that the UN commission would not have published their document in support of human influenced global warming if there were not a preponderance of scientific opinion agreeing with them. But you go ahead and hang your hat on 9K...or even the 30K if you'd like... although I think that guys with a GED or a two year weather forecasting degree from their local VOTEC are not really "scientists" :laugh2:

(notice the :laugh2:..that means that I am NOT saying that I have any evidence that any of the 21K "scientists" who do NOT have a PhD are not college or post graduate degree guys... or gals. I know if I didn't ADD this little disclaimer that, all of a sudden, that would be what this whole conversation is about, as per yurt, the nitpicking ninny)

[Yurt]

manfrommaine;277481]I have no idea. my guess is that the UN commission would not have published their document in support of human influenced global warming if there were not a preponderance of scientific opinion agreeing with them.

my dear, dear friend from maine....you can hang your hat on the UN....in other news....


But you go ahead and hang your hat on 9K...or even the 30K if you'd like... although I think that guys with a GED or a two year weather forecasting degree from their local VOTEC are not really "scientists" :laugh2:

so you think science is some kind of democracy or courtroom? you think science should be played out by what theory is most popular among the electorate or among the masses? you think a single judge, a panel of judges or maybe a jury should decide?

why do you diss those with knowledge in weather forecasting? does it rain on your parade everyday?



(notice the :laugh2:..that means that I am NOT saying that I have any evidence that any of the 21K "scientists" who do NOT have a PhD are not college or post graduate degree guys... or gals. I know if I didn't ADD this little disclaimer that, all of a sudden, that would be what this whole conversation is about, as per yurt, the nitpicking ninny)

ah, my dear, dear friend from maine, couldn't resist the insult. if you don't like that i challenge you, then don't respond to me. but to insult and call tough questions "nitpicking" is really intellectual cowardice. if you were truly brave, intellectually, you would simply meet my questions head on and not simply dismiss them as nitpicking. that is the cowards way. are you a coward?

[retiredman]

my dear, dear friend from maine....you can hang your hat on the UN....in other news....

so you think science is some kind of democracy or courtroom? you think science should be played out by what theory is most popular among the electorate or among the masses? you think a single judge, a panel of judges or maybe a jury should decide?

why do you diss those with knowledge in weather forecasting? does it rain on your parade everyday?

ah, my dear, dear friend from maine, couldn't resist the insult. if you don't like that i challenge you, then don't respond to me. but to insult and call tough questions "nitpicking" is really intellectual cowardice. if you were truly brave, intellectually, you would simply meet my questions head on and not simply dismiss them as nitpicking. that is the cowards way. are you a coward?
science is never clear cut, especially on the cutting edges. Consider the difficulties that Copernicus encountered when trying to convince the pillars of society that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. I mrely point out that, according to all that I have read, the overwhelming number of climatologists on the planet think that man is shitting in his nest and impacting the temperature of the planet by doing so.

And I am neither a coward nor a liar. You, on the other hand, are a slanderous, nitpicking little ninny...and I am damned glad you're not MY lawyer!

and I don't diss weather forecasters...I merely note that they ain't climatologists.

[Yurt]

=manfrommaine;277496]science is never clear cut, especially on the cutting edges. Consider the difficulties that Copernicus encountered when trying to convince the pillars of society that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. I mrely point out that, according to all that I have read, the overwhelming number of climatologists on the planet think that man is shitting in his nest and impacting the temperature of the planet by doing so.

fair enough. is the majority always right in science? i speak to "all that i have read"...and the "overwhelming" numbers you speak of. have there been times in history where the majority of scientists or the prevailing scientific theory been wrong?




And I am neither a coward nor a liar. You, on the other hand, are a slanderous, nitpicking little ninny...and I am damned glad you're not MY lawyer!

that is good, my dear, dear friend from maine, because if you were my client i would kick you in the ass and watch as you fly out the door.

[retiredman]

fair enough. is the majority always right in science? i speak to "all that i have read"...and the "overwhelming" numbers you speak of. have there been times in history where the majority of scientists or the prevailing scientific theory been wrong?

of course not. so you are willing to sit and do nothing because they might in fact be wrong and our shiiting in our nest as badly as we have done and are doing is NOT harming the planet? Does that really make sense to you"

that is good, my dear, dear friend from maine, because if you were my client i would kick you in the ass and watch as you fly out the door.

and I would hire a lawyer much better than YOU and sue you for everything you've got...which probably wouldn't be worth my time, in which case, I'd just laugh at you.

[Yurt]

do use the quote function.....thanks big guy.....


QUOTE=manfrommaine;277554]fair enough. is the majority always right in science? i speak to "all that i have read"...and the "overwhelming" numbers you speak of. have there been times in history where the majority of scientists or the prevailing scientific theory been wrong?



of course not. so you are willing to sit and do nothing because they might in fact be wrong and our shiiting in our nest as badly as we have done and are doing is NOT harming the planet? Does that really make sense to you"


sitting and doing nothing....big words....when you are saying that doing the opposite is...something. what is something mfm? is taking a shit something? is man breathing something? what about cows? what about land that is used for homes, cows, corn, farms....... do you have google earth? if so, lets talk.


that is good, my dear, dear friend from maine, because if you were my client i would kick you in the ass and watch as you fly out the door.



and I would hire a lawyer much better than YOU and sue you for everything you've got...which probably wouldn't be worth my time, in which case, I'd just laugh at you.[/QUOTE]

of course you would, i am the worst lawyer in the world, you have said so, no one would hire me, i am worthless, you are right

[retiredman]

do use the quote function.....thanks big guy.....






sitting and doing nothing....big words....when you are saying that doing the opposite is...something. what is something mfm? is taking a shit something? is man breathing something? what about cows? what about land that is used for homes, cows, corn, farms....... do you have google earth? if so, lets talk.





of course you would, i am the worst lawyer in the world, you have said so, no one would hire me, i am worthless, you are right[/QUOTE]


when YOU use the quote function, you fuck it all up - as you did above... big guy.

If you are willing to say that we should continue on spewing smoke and exhaust into our atmosphere, and we should continue to spew nasty chemicals into our lakes and rivers and streams, then we'll just have to agree to disagree

[Yurt]

of course you would, i am the worst lawyer in the world, you have said so, no one would hire me, i am worthless, you are right


when YOU use the quote function, you fuck it all up - as you did above... big guy.

If you are willing to say that we should continue on spewing smoke and exhaust into our atmosphere, and we should continue to spew nasty chemicals into our lakes and rivers and streams, then we'll just have to agree to disagree
ummmm, no, go back and read the quotes... they are accurate, next

stop putting words in my mouth, i never said that, stop it.

:lol:

[retiredman]

ummmm, no, go back and read the quotes... they are accurate, next

stop putting words in my mouth, i never said that, stop it.

the fact remains, your use of the quote function has quotes by me attributed to you and vice versa....you fuck it up, so your telling ME to use it is not only silly, but it is none of your fucking business how I chose to write my posts, ok?

and are you saying you agree with me that shitting in our nests is a bad thing or not? get off the dime? Do you honestly want to continue fucking the world up because there is not unanimity that it is doing permanent harm?

[Yurt]

the fact remains, your use of the quote function has quotes by me attributed to you and vice versa....you fuck it up, so your telling ME to use it is not only silly, but it is none of your fucking business how I chose to write my posts, ok?

and are you saying you agree with me that shitting in our nests is a bad thing or not? get off the dime? Do you honestly want to continue fucking the world up because there is not unanimity that it is doing permanent harm?

so we should not go number 2

[retiredman]

so we should not go number 2
is that going to be the peak level of your intellectual contribution to this thread? if so, count me out. I watched enought sesame street when my kids were growing up, I'll leave it to you now.
silly little boy

[Yurt]

is that going to be the peak level of your intellectual contribution to this thread? if so, count me out. I watched enought sesame street when my kids were growing up, I'll leave it to you now.
silly little boy

you would't know what a peak is if landed on your....

if you can't discuss it, then admit it, and move on

[retiredman]

you would't know what a peak is if landed on your....

if you can't discuss it, then admit it, and move on

I can discuss it, clearly you are the one who cannot and only relies on links to other people's words. and then regressing to little potty jokes that six year olds make. you are a fucking joke, yurt....you really are.

[emmett]

either link up a post of mine where I have asked for "government to take over and regulate huge portions of the economy. Everything that emits heat, or carbon, or pollution etc." or quit fucking putting words in my mouth. OK?


Ah.......................it already does!

[Yurt]

I can discuss it, clearly you are the one who cannot and only relies on links to other people's words. and then regressing to little potty jokes that six year olds make. you are a fucking joke, yurt....you really are.

potty jokes?

[red states rule]

potty jokes?

The enviro wackos are getting desperate

Headline: 'Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 9, 2008 - 18:42 ET

From the "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" department: "Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow, Scientists Say."

What? Hasn't Nobel Laureate Al Gore and every climate alarmist in the media been warning us that global warming is causing glaciers to melt, and that we're all going to die if we don't do something about it?

Well, not so fast, because according to the CBC, much like climate change can cause droughts AND torrential rains, it now seems the tricky little devil can make glaciers grow too

The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/headline-global-warming-causing-california-glacier-grow

[retiredman]

potty jokes?


#59