Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes perfect sense. It doesnt mean actual good conservation efforts and/or environmentally sound decisions are not warrented.
It speaks to the stupidity that has creeped into the "green" issue. We got rid of incandecent lightbulbs in favor of mercury filled CFLs because it was "green" but the "green" move is now causing landfills to be full of mercury that will one day seep into the water table. Yea us!
We have poured billions down green holes in the ground in places like Solindra (sp?). I could go on for days.
"Green" has become an excuse for really stupid things.
That still makes no sense, there are limited resources, long term fossil fuels will be gone. You are bringing up marginal arguments without addressing the core issues.
CC/GW was destroyed by Al-Jazeera Gore sometime recently when he proved he was done with his cottage industry and announced his true thoughts on the subject via his business dealings with Qatar. Obviously, he no longer needs any further revenue from it but others just can't let go of the grail.
I'm sorry, did an asteroid recently hit the Earth? Oh ok, thought you were trying to make a real argument there.
I'm going to create a new thread where I copy and paste some passages about String Theory. After all, if I have the insight to copy and paste something, it must mean that I understand it completely and will be able to engage in intelligent discourse on it.
Uh, yes.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1159$sx620$s and weights 140$sKB.
That was 11,000 years ago. When your Ice Age abruptly and abnormally ended, and when "Flood Myths" began to emerge.
That's what ended up on Earth. No telling what ended up in the oceans triggering a global tsunami.
I mention that because, well, since your Ice Age ended, uh, abruptly and abnormally, even if it would be true that Earth is warming, you cannot rule the probability and likelihood that it is a natural process associated with the end of Ice Ages.
LOL. You just got DESTROYED again, seattle. What you gonna do?
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1159$sx620$s and weights 140$sKB.
That was 11,000 years ago. When your Ice Age abruptly and abnormally ended, and when "Flood Myths" began to emerge.
That's what ended up on Earth. No telling what ended up in the oceans triggering a global tsunami.
I mention that because, well, since your Ice Age ended, uh, abruptly and abnormally, even if it would be true that Earth is warming, you cannot rule the probability and likelihood that it is a natural process associated with the end of Ice Ages.
LOL. You just got DESTROYED again, seattle. What you gonna do?
Yeah, I just got destroyed by a crazy dude claiming that the ice ages ended because of Noah's flood.
I think I'm going to go start dinner. What are you going to do?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,175,658 times
Reputation: 8105
Concerning the OP:
Wiki: "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
.........virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
6. To this point, I can find no rational explanation for a scientific consensus on this issue that could account for it being "a hoax" or a "political agendum." Climate scientists as a rule do not depend for their employment on a rising (rather than falling or static) global temperature. They are not 90 plus % "liberal" or "Democratic." They do not appear to have supported Obama at any higher rate than the general populace.
My twenty cents.
Yes, they do. They know who pays their salaries and without AGW, they have no job.
Wow... so much cherry picking in a single sentence. But of course it is standard for AGW deniers to cite the noise and not the secular trend. If you pick any ten year period, you can show anything you want to show as you did here, and it doesn't even need to be true..
Yes, you can pick your time frame to show we are warming or cooling. Or change the raw data to show whatever you choose. Mann has shown us how to do that. He is the ultimate hoax perpetrator.
But you can't deny that there has been no warming for 15 years. Even the AGW alarmists agree on that.
They won't pick a topic and stay on it. They won't allow for ANY fixes, or allow blame to be placed anywhere but Western civilization and capitalism. They attempt to use Alinsky's rule on mocking and making fun of anyone that disagrees, refusing to address ANY of the facts and/or logic presented.
You, those in the AGW camp are either marxists, seeking to bring down Western civilization and capitalism OR you've been duped and brainwashed by those who are.
If you are firmly in the AGW alarmist camp, maybe it's time for a little soul searching to determine which of the above you are.
Del Boy, Most of these proggy libs just barley understand what they habe between their legs and that's all they have in life.
google 'doggerland', which i am sure you will find interesting, and will lend to why there are no skeeters in England anymore.
I could use a favor if you happen to know the answer.
Just how is it there is a 14th century map of Antarctica with no ice?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1159$sx620$s and weights 140$sKB.
