Changing opinion on Global Warming

god1 · Dec 1, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Deciphering...
"I hate science, why would I want to cite something scientific in a discussion about science?"

Ahaha --- you are way stupid beyond help. Can't even decipher correctly. Your crypto ring must be busted.
Just admit you're a "fanboy" of stupid --- so do you turn to the east or west when you pray?

abandonconflict · Dec 1, 2015

Bugeye said:
Yes, the author is politically biased! Glad you are starting to see the point.

Idiot.

That has been my point all along. He is a politically biased talking head, not an expert. It is just an insult that you think it is worth debating because he comes from the democrat party. Glad YOU'RE starting to see the point.

abandonconflict · Dec 1, 2015

god1 said:
Ahaha --- you are way stupid beyond help. Can't even decipher correctly. Your crypto ring must be busted.
Just admit you're a "fanboy" of stupid --- so do you turn to the east or west when you pray?

god1 said:
Why do you keep yelling for a peer reviewed citation? Continue with your religion. The machine needs people like you.

Nope, I did it right, you're mad because I won't accept your sermon with out proper citation.

Bugeye · Dec 1, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Idiot.

That has been my point all along. He is a politically biased talking head, not an expert. It is just an insult that you think it is worth debating because he comes from the democrat party. Glad YOU'RE starting to see the point.

Then why are you here trying to have a debate? I'm not forcing you to post here.

If I am an idiot, what does it say about you arguing with me? ha ha ha.

abandonconflict · Dec 1, 2015

Bugeye said:
Then why are you here trying to have a debate? I'm not forcing you to post here.

If I am an idiot, what does it say about you arguing with me? ha ha ha.

So you're a troll...

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Capitalism is not possible in the absence of gov't.

Pretty much anything is not possible without some form of governing body [when referring to humans] -- lawlessness and anarchy are completely unsustainable. Then throw greed and leverage into the mix? Sheesh, I'm glad I own guns, because in that world, the best shot, wins.

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

Bugeye said:
Yes, the author is politically biased! Glad you are starting to see the point. A vegan enviro dem changed his opinion on AGW from that of believing everything to being skeptical of the worst case scenarios after doing 400 hours of research and posting to many many links of peer reviewed science that he relied on. Glad to finally get you straight on that after 6 pages. As such, your call for stuff that invalidates AGW is ridiculous because that position was never argued by anyone. Get it?

Actually, I think you are missing ACs point, which was a little like the point I made earlier [in another thread] regarding skunk marihuana killing brain cells. I think the problem AC [and I] have is that you (figuratively) perpetuate nonsense. The author of the Forbes article merely repeated what someone else said that some else concluded. In other words, hearsay. Forbes then, unsurprisingly, made a captive headline inferring the content of the headlined article was based solely in fact and was all but conclusive. But then when you peel back the layers we quickly find that not to be the case. -- I think AC is making that point here, with you. He is simply saying, "why perpetuate bullshit?" -- In short, the line of questioning should be as follows: Do you believe what the author of the op-ed article said? If so, can you provide evidence to the fact? If not, what's your point?

Does that make sense?

abandonconflict · Dec 1, 2015

see4 said:
Pretty much anything is not possible without some form of governing body [when referring to humans] -- lawlessness and anarchy are completely unsustainable. Then throw greed and leverage into the mix? Sheesh, I'm glad I own guns, because in that world, the best shot, wins.

Sounds like status quo more than anarchy.

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Sounds like status quo more than anarchy.

There is definitely a high level of governing, albeit very broken in many parts of the world. But it still exists. Without it, the best shot, wins. And the last time I checked, I could reach out and plink a 10 inch diameter plate from 600 yards out. #justsayin

Bugeye · Dec 1, 2015

see4 said:
Actually, I think you are missing ACs point, which was a little like the point I made earlier [in another thread] regarding skunk marihuana killing brain cells. I think the problem AC [and I] have is that you (figuratively) perpetuate nonsense. The author of the Forbes article merely repeated what someone else said that some else concluded. In other words, hearsay. Forbes then, unsurprisingly, made a captive headline inferring the content of the headlined article was based solely in fact and was all but conclusive. But then when you peel back the layers we quickly find that not to be the case. -- I think AC is making that point here, with you. He is simply saying, "why perpetuate bullshit?" -- In short, the line of questioning should be as follows: Do you believe what the author of the op-ed article said? If so, can you provide evidence to the fact? If not, what's your point?

Does that make sense?

The perpetuation of nonsense is 90% of what I see here in the Politics section.

AC complaining that a post is politically biased in the Politics section? Uh, what am I missing here? I shouldn't be allowed to post a political opinion piece on AGW in the Politics section? I would say tough cookies, but don't want to come off as rude.

abandonconflict · Dec 1, 2015

So no, @see4, he doesn't get it.

Bugeye · Dec 1, 2015

abandonconflict said:
So no, @see4, he doesn't get it.

Nice of you to translate but I'm sure he gets it.

How about I reboot the thread?

This thread links to a political commentary in post 1 written by a self professed environmental activist democrat vegan writer. He changes his opinion on AGW from one of believing the upper range of the models (alarmist) to one more in line with the bottom range of the models (skeptic/denier?). Please do not read it if you are not into political commentary as it could be a micro-aggression against some of you thin skinned RIU Politicial posters, you sensitive little daisies, you. Also, if you mind is easily blown by razzmatazz and pictures of kittens, this may not be for you. :bigjoint:

ttystikk · Dec 1, 2015

UncleBuck said:
america has not cleaned up its act, and china is leading the way in building renewable energy rather than coal fired plants now.

Don't forget Germany, they're making great strides as well.

ttystikk · Dec 1, 2015

see4 said:
There is definitely a high level of governing, albeit very broken in many parts of the world. But it still exists. Without it, the best shot, wins. And the last time I checked, I could reach out and plink a 10 inch diameter plate from 600 yards out. #justsayin

Square shootin', Tex!

That's a world I've seen closely enough to never, ever want to inhabit or encourage.

bravedave · Dec 1, 2015

see4 said:
LOL breitbart. You used breitbart as a point of factual reference. Now THAT is some funny shit right there.

I know exactly where you stand on the "intelligent discussion" scale.

He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.

bravedave · Dec 1, 2015

ttystikk said:
Don't forget Germany, they're making great strides as well.

Citation

bravedave · Dec 1, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Capitalism is not possible in the absence of gov't.

Did you learn that in graduate school?

UncleBuck · Dec 1, 2015

bravedave said:
He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.

hey bravedave, how is the leaf grow going?

lots of leaves again, like usual?

see4 · Dec 1, 2015

bravedave said:
He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I will remember how sensitive you are next time I make a comment about the silly things you write.

Padawanbater2 · Dec 1, 2015

bravedave said:
He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.

There's a big difference between the bullshit you do - "only read the things you agree with" - and actually reading what's objective and verifiably true

Changing opinion on Global Warming

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member