Reply With Quote
Oh - so when you said environmentalists above you meant EU? Also, I know you're slow but I already gave you links.
Yeah, Manny, what do you get out of it?
Oh - so when you said environmentalists above you meant EU? Also, I know you're slow but I already gave you links.
Someone who calls Kyoto vomit and denies Global Warming is worried about environmentalist destroying the planet. Wow.
Economy destroying vomit.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, thank you. The planet gets warm, the planet gets cold, all on its own. Has for, well, eons. We've been warmer and colder -- both without the help -- or even the presence -- of mankind.
Okay, that was sarcasm. I'm not really worried about environmentalists destroying the planet. I was merely pointing out how futile and stupid are their antics.
Hey! Let's talk about the hockey stick graph? Or Al Gore's inconvenient truth of having a big ass...carbon footprint! Or, we could talk about all the lies and faked data that went into forming the IPCC report...
Take your pick.
I gotta give Yonivore credit; at least he goes down with the ship.
How 'bout the near extinction of polar bears -- floating on pieces of ice -- to the point we keep being shown the same ing bear in the same ing picture, year after ing year, while the polar bear population explodes!
I'm not going down with that ship. Al Gore is captaining the sinking ship of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
Ooooh the irony.How 'bout the near extinction of polar bears -- floating on pieces of ice -- to the point we keep being shown the same ing bear in the same ing picture, year after ing year, while the polar bear population explodes!
A guy who uses the same tired propaganda year, after year, after year, criticizing others for doing so.
Are we branching out yet again?
Of what propaganda do you speak? Or, are you suggesting that the burgeoning polar bear populations of which I speak are propaganda?
Yonivore is a noble crusader against intellectually dishonest propaganda. What a hero and a patriot!
Finally!
Biofuel fuels are not, in and of themselves, "bad for the environment".
They are a laudable goal and, in all certainty, something we will need as oil winds down.
The problem with the way they are used now, they are a net CO2 emitter, simply because production, outside of Brazil still requires a lot of oil.
You know all of this already.
What you seem to be unaware of, is that agribusiness and farming lobbies have pushed biofuel subsidies towards less attractive alternatives, such as corn ethanol and so forth.
Indeed some "environmentalists" have gone along, under the misguided perception that it helps.
However, it has been a consensus among environmental groups for some time that biofuels just aren't ready for prime time yet.
Well, perhaps my criticism was a bit unfair.
You do find new propaganda all the time, as your prolific thread starting clearly demonstrates.
You post half-truths, and rarely stick around long after they are revealed as such.
This thread is a fair example, although I am a bit surprises you are still here. Probably a bit worked up over manny's ascerbic posts, I imagine.
What about the valid data and truth that went into it?
It was a summary of a decade of work. Was all of it lies?
Do you really think all climate scientists are lying?
Completely undermined by the lies, obfuscation, misrepresentation, politics, and by the valid data and truths that did not go into it.
No, not the ones that say climate change is natural, has been occurring since the planet formed, and that man has negligible, if any, affect on persistent global climate.
I also believe the climate scientists that say it is more likely the sun is affecting our climate more than the exhaust from cow's butts.
What was the half-truth in this thread?Well, perhaps my criticism was a bit unfair.
You do find new propaganda all the time, as your prolific thread starting clearly demonstrates.
You post half-truths, and rarely stick around long after they are revealed as such.
Are not the EU and British Governments pioneers in climate-conscious regulations? Did they not incorporate biofuels into their "Renewable Energy Plan" in an effort to be more environmentally conscious? Did it not backfire?
How 'bout we talk about the gem know as MTBE? Remember that fiasco?
Nah, just drinking heavily. Y'all aren't bothering me.
I'd resort to heavy drinking if I was you as well.
Yes you would.
So basically the only climate scientists who aren't lying are the ones you agree with.
Riiiiight.
That is your biggest problem in a nuts , IMO.
You are incapable of acknowledging people who disagree with you might be doing so out of a different viewpoint in a principled, intelligent manner.
If someone disagrees with you they are automatically liars and/or idiots.
The need to feel superior to others is one very common trait of people who seem to share a lot of your beliefs. This is often at the expense of compassion, logic, and morality.
Sorry, not all climate scientists are liars or in on the "big conspiracy".
Most genuinely believe they are correct, and they gather a fair amount of data to support the thesis that greenhouse gases are warming the planet.
You can do all the hand-waving you want, but that is much closer to the truth than "they are all liars if Yonivore disagrees with them".
...and whose conclusions haven't been disproved or found out to be lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations or driven by politics.
Or, you could have phrased that, I tend to agree or lean toward the conclusions of climatologists whose work impresses me, seems reasonable, is well-supported, and who haven't had their work undermined by the lies, obfuscations, or misrepresentations of others or themselves.
That would be more fair.
Pretty much.
Then, you engage in virtual psychoanalysis of an anonymous poster on an inconsequential forum. Sorry, stopped reading. Some of you really get into the personalities in here.
No, it wouldn't. It would be, per your usual, less honest.
You made up your mind a long time ago, and simply indulge in confirmation bias.
If you were being honest, you would admit that the only people who "impress" you are the ones you already agree with.
The rest of it, is simply you deceiving yourself, and/or trying to bull the rest of us.
Please stop lying to us about how fair you are.
Sure it would. Suggesting I formed an opinion and waited for scientists to appear that agreed with it is pretty ludicrous. Like I said, it would be more fair to say I agree with the scientists whose arguments make the most sense to me.
You're right. I became convinced a long time ago that man had a negligible affect on global climate. But, because there's been nothing in the interim to convince me otherwise doesn't make me intellectually dishonest or unfair.
There's just not been anything to change my mind. Maybe the scientists with whom I agree are right.
Why do I agree with them?
Tell me; which climate scientist would you recommend I read that you believe makes the most compelling case for anthropogenic global climate change?
Damn, yoni got stomped so bad he had to get drunk to forget.
(beer)
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-11-2010 at 06:49 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
