X. Benedict Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I agree, that would be enough to kick my brothers ass, for touching my bottle of Jameson. Yum. Jameson. Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Wake up Potsie! He's kicking your ass up and down the court. Yup, real ass kicking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 Wake up Potsie! He's kicking your ass up and down the court. It's even funnier that your lack of ability to think for yourself means you actually believe that. Please don't ever leave - I'd miss your hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Global warming exists. The earth is getting warmer, But it is NOT due to humans. Play on, Nero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I didnt say it takes away any responsibility we have of being responsible. I'm more into the science than the actual policy. The earth is warming. when the warming cycle comes to an end, we are going to head into a long ice age. Its how the cycles work. The earth will take care of herself. Humans arrogantly think we can "destroy" the earth, but in the end (of course, this could be millions of years off), if things are shifted too far out of balance, we'll get ours. The earth will take care of herself, and we'll be left by the wayside. Cycles hold, until they don't. There was concern (no evidence either way, other than that our 12,000 year warm period was longer than any previous one) that the cycles of ice ages and warm ages was coming to an end. Other than the notion that it would happen in our particular warm period, this would not be shocking given that the cycle was geologically unusual, and only in place for about 2.5 million years. For the previous 100 million years the earth was uniformly hotter, no ice ages, with about 20% of todays land masses submerged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Wake up Potsie! He's kicking your ass up and down the court. PatSack is kicking ass the same way a squirrel kicks the ass of the car that just ran it over. Splat. So far his argument is something along the lines of "90% of scientists think there's global warming and if you don't agree then you don't think for yourself or you failed Earth Science. And my grandpa lived through the Great Depression." Anyone who really believes that global warming is caused by man might as well kiss their ass goodbye. Even if the U.S. spends the trillions it would take to actually decrease America's emissions as our population increases, China's rapidly growing economy will more than make up for those emissions and they'll increase worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Obviously even if we aren't responsible for the Earth's warming as a whole, it's still a pretty sh------- life when we are covered with smog and toxic fumes. As if total destruction is the only reason we need to stop polluting. Obviously it takes a disaster before people even start giving a sh--. Yeah, we have done nothing but sit by and watch. When I moved to CA in 1983 the sky was more yellow than blue and we never saw the mountains. Now we very rarely have stage one smog alerts and we can see the mountains more days than not. But the earth continues to warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 It's even funnier that your lack of ability to think for yourself means you actually believe that. Please don't ever leave - I'd miss your hypocrisy. Gee whiz Darin I hope you realize I had no intention of even looking at this thread, given the thuddingly dull and redundant subject matter (debunking global warming by non-scientists and other wingnut conservatives) and the fact that you started it. But I guess I was weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Gee whiz Darin I hope you realize I had no intention of even looking at this thread, given the thuddingly dull and redundant subject matter (debunking global warming by non-scientists and other wingnut conservatives) and the fact that you started it. But I guess I was weak. And yet you still did, and still look like a moron. Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 And yet you still did, and still look like a moron. Good job. It ain't so much that twerp as it is amusing for me to behold the idiocy of the anti-environmentalists. It gives me every bit of optimism in the world that thanks to the jackasses who perpetuate these screwball "opinions" as if they were fact, we will soon be headed for planned obsolescence But heck don't let me burst your bubble champ.........just keep swallowing the lies Derwood and his ilk like to champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 It ain't so much that twerp as it is amusing for me to behold the idiocy of the anti-environmentalists.It gives me every bit of optimism in the world that thanks to the jackasses who perpetuate these screwball "opinions" as if they were fact, we will soon be headed for planned obsolescence But heck don't let me burst your bubble champ.........just keep swallowing the lies Derwood and his ilk like to champion. Actually. You have no idea what my opinion is on this matter. You have no idea if I agree with good ol Al or vice versa. You have no clue wtf my "screwball" opinion is. What you do know is I consider you a !@#$ing idiot. Please don't assume that it is only the anti-Gw crowd that think you're a moron. I'm pretty sure people from all walks of life and ideologies have a very low opinion of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Actually. You have no idea what my opinion is on this matter. You have no idea if I agree with good ol Al or vice versa. You have no clue wtf my "screwball" opinion is. What you do know is I consider you a !@#$ing idiot. Please don't assume that it is only the anti-Gw crowd that think you're a moron. I'm pretty sure people from all walks of life and ideologies have a very low opinion of you. And I don't care what your screwball opinion is. Judging by your neanderthal avatar I'm absolutely positive I don't want to know your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 And I don't care what your screwball opinion is. Judging by your neanderthal avatar I'm absolutely positive I don't want to know your opinions. A half naked chick holding a flag. Yeah, real neanderthal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 A half naked chick holding a flag. Yeah, real neanderthal. Ok...I see what I'm dealing with here. Later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Ok...I see what I'm dealing with here.Later Another battle you won in your head there. Good job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Anyone who really believes that global warming is caused by man might as well kiss their ass goodbye. Even if the U.S. spends the trillions it would take to actually decrease America's emissions as our population increases, China's rapidly growing economy will more than make up for those emissions and they'll increase worldwide. I don't care if it is man-made or not, but I find the science convincing. And I agree that the political realities will prevent anything we do here from slowing down what is happening elsewhere. So yes, I think we can kiss our asses goodbye. Or at least the asses of our descendents. So what is worse - fatalism or denial? Shall we reject our inconvenient calculations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatPatPatSack Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 ................................. As far as "not caring a whit" (whatever the fukk that is), you're wrong. I simply don't care what your opinion of me is. Try and figure out the difference. Actually, I think I know you better than maybe I care to. I've read well over 1000 of your posts and the responses to them. That is a body of work that is pretty indicative of either what you believe, or some persona you are spending way too much time to cultivate. And it is having witnessed that, that I feel pretty safe in calling out your attitude as a, well since the kids are in bed and you prefer it, a dick. That really is based upon your body of work mind you, not your claims today. As to the difference between caring and this macho beer he-man attitude, I think I am pretty safe there too. You don't much care for anybody. Not that I've seen. So let the chips fall where they may, but you have been pretty eloquent in stating that. Hey if I am wrong, show me why. But don't pretend that after 10,000 posts (god, I just looked and it was 25k), you give a pretty good picture of yourself and your character. Alaska Darin = Great Humanitarian doesn't seem to be the phrase of choice around here. Maybe I missed the post. Back to the real reason I picked this fight. "Junk Science" as mantra. After Ramius gives some evidence that he has actually studied the issue and applied some scientific reasoning to the issue and seems well on the way to contributing, you do a throw up of a few unrelated items and disparage the entire body of scientific thought, publications, discourse, freakin issues of Scientific American. You know if you are going to throw GW under the bus (global not greggo), you got to do better than that. That is precisely my point. And here it is yet agin for those who can't glean it from my writing. It is the height of stupidity, to ignore learned men, discussing learned things, by saying ahh.... they don't know what they are talking about. They do. They attempt to prove it using time and world tested techniques. Your ranting does not change that. What your ranting does, is give obviously less than able thinkers like silver and gold (sorry Silv, you just don't seem to have the cleverness to hang in this battle) a rally point. Yours is a sort of leadership position for the less capable. I'm just hoping that, like in the creation vs. evolution dialog, we keep reminding folks that we are not the wackos. We represent what is the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm. Seems like it should be a popular strategy. My disappointment is that it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 So what is worse - fatalism or denial? Shall we reject our inconvenient calculations? What is worse is polarization on what is fundamentally a scientific question. For some this seems locked shut - and they will not be convinced either way. If the hypothesis is that global warming is primarily attributed to man made carbon emissions and that the Earth is heating up at an alarming rate - you have to account for data that doesn't fit the hypothesis. Not being able to account for it means either the hypothesis is wrong, the data is wrong, or there is something else going on. Skepticism is the check on bad science. I just called my broker to sell cold fusion stocks - I took quite a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 They do. They attempt to prove it using time and world tested techniques. Your ranting does not change that. What your ranting does, is give obviously less than able thinkers like silver and gold (sorry Silv, you just don't seem to have the cleverness to hang in this battle) a rally point. Yours is a sort of leadership position for the less capable.Yeah, either that or I'm too busy at work during the day to write monster-sized posts on this message board to pompous !@#$s like you. Look at this crap you wrote below. This reads like self-parody: I'm just hoping that, like in the creation vs. evolution dialog, we keep reminding folks that we are not the wackos. We represent what is the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm. Seems like it should be a popular strategy. My disappointment is that it isn't. Do you talk like that in real life? "Hello, my name is Mr. Smith, and I represent the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm." And then you can continue: "And as the protector of truth and justice in the universe, I know the best way to ensure that my children are always free from fear is to make sure that they are always aware of the global warming that is going to kill them all and that they never, ever question it or consider any evidence against it. Because that's silly. And the scientists that don't believe in man-made global warming care nothing for truth or enlightenment." Sorry if I'm not totally convinced that the earth's climate is rapidly spinning out of control because of emissions (not that emissions are good) but if buying into everything Al Gore says makes you the representation of the search for truth and the aspiration for all mankind to join hands across the world and sing together in perfect harmony until the end of time, then I guess maybe I should take a closer look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatPatPatSack Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 What is worse is polarization on what is fundamentally a scientific question. For some this seems locked shut - and they will not be convinced either way. If the hypothesis is that global warming is primarily attributed to man made carbon emissions and that the Earth is heating up at an alarming rate - you have to account for data that doesn't fit the hypothesis. Not being able to account for it means either the hypothesis is wrong, the data is wrong, or there is something else going on. Skepticism is the check on bad science. I just called my broker to sell cold fusion stocks - I took quite a hit. I think the hypothesis is that there is a warming trend. And that it may have a great effect on the environment and it's current stastis. I would suggest that skepticism is not the check on bad science. Good science is the check. Skepticism should be what motivates good science. Skepticism without good science is just an unbalanced belief system. Heck I subscribe to The Skeptic Magazine (from right here in Amherst! good stuff!). But to be a skeptic comes with it a responsibility for a higher degree of proof. Otherwise you are just a crank. Or you/it becomes the province of religion and matters become accepted "on faith". Can good science produce incorrect conclusions? Sure. I consider bad science not incorrect conclusions, but poorly done science. But it takes a very high degree of insight and knowlege to be able to pan someones efforts as "bad science" It requires a greater degree of proof. It is a problem because everyone wants to discover something and noone wants to spend a career checking out someones else's work and saying - yep, it's good. So I agree mostly with your post. And only differ in making the hypothesis and our argument today a bit simpler. There is still tremendous power in a conclusion that the is such of a thing as Global Warming. And it's presence is going to be not insignificant. I wonder, who feels that this hypothesis is true, not true, or unproven? And who would agree that this report, conclusions notwithstanding, is a product of junk science? http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts