Simpler Question About AGW

[Tokenconservative]

For my money, you are right on the button.

However, I suspect he has left a lot of wriggle room. Notice the lack of definition of evil, modern, industrial, human, climate and static.

Taking then an AGWist_TC at face value (talk about living dangerously) I don't know of anybody, does anyone?

Sure...I do.

Your Pope: Algore.

Tokie

 

[zeusbheld]

They believe that ONLY human activity is causing "climate change" (nifty switch to a better phrase since Algore got snowed out of a Global Warming conference a few years ago...).

problem is... i've not run into anyone, even on the net, who believes that version. i'd ask you to find me one example, but i know you're tooo LAAAAAAAZYYYY to do LIIIIIINNNKKss.

So, if you hold to something less dogmatic (all those "anamolous" and "may be" things you put in there are not very doctrinaire...do you need a refresher course?) good for you!

hmmmmm... "not very doctrinaire." that's because i don't adhere to ANY doctrine whatsoever. more than i can say for you.

Meanwhile, who cares? Your kind are not driving the thing, the other kind IS. You and I will soon be paying higher taxes of all sorts because Humans Cause Global Warming!!!!

who cares, well *i* do for one. *i* want to know what is really happening, unlike you, apparently.

You, as a lib

WHOA THERE, PARDNER. just coz you're a rigid, unthinking lockstep party-line ideologue does NOT mean you have the right to assume i am.

 

[zeusbheld]

Um...I guess you need to reframe the question...is there something here or elsewhere that suggests to you I give a flying naked mole rat's ass what you do or do not think?

If so, I apologize for having led you down that particular primrose path for I assure you, what you do or do not think of this or any issue is of no concern to me whatsoever.

I hope we've cleared up that misconception.

Tokie

yep, crystal clear. the thread IS nothing more than a windup, and not only have you have no interest in persuading someone like me, who as yet has no opinion on AGW, you don't give a "flying naked mole rat's ass" what's really happening. glad we cleared that up.

MHAZE: "Tokie" is a perfect example of your #3. for the sake of your own credibility, distance yourself from him.

 

[The Gnomon]

Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd.

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.
I hope that there are some, in both groups, who are willing to look at the evidence. Assuming, as I believe is reasonable, that there is an anthropogenic component to global warming, it none-the-less is not at all clear as to what specific activity or group of activities is responsible for this. Clearly such information would be vital to designing countermeasures. Wouldn't it be typically human if we assumed CO2 to be the culprit, somehow reduced CO2 at great cost, and find that it wasn't the problem, but only a by-effect? And finding this out too late?
Meanwhile, massive destruction of forests and fisheries continues unabated, oil reserves become increasingly depleted, and a clearly unsustainable population continues (in spite of some slowing of the rate) to grow.
Are these a unitary problem? or are they separable, just equally severe?
These are issues which require careful thought and scientific study, not dogmatism and name-calling.

I recommend we end this thread.

 

[JoeEllison]

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.

Except, of course, that you can't really point to any of them here, can you.... that dishonest "both sides do it" argument bores me to tears.

 

[JoeEllison]

problem is... i've not run into anyone, even on the net, who believes that version. i'd ask you to find me one example, but i know you're tooo LAAAAAAAZYYYY to do LIIIIIINNNKKss..

It isn't laziness. Tokie posted a very obviously stupid lie, and there's no way he can back up his very stupid lie.

 

[Acleron]

Sure...I do.

Your Pope: Algore.

Tokie

First, you have no information what my religion is or not.

Second, transforming somebody's name is just childish.

Third, you already know I haven't seen the film, unlike yourself I prefer to look at the data, not have my mind made up major media outlets whose first aim is not to educate you but to make money by selling to you or not upsetting large advertisers.

Fourthly, in the UK, the film was subject to a high court action which found nine points which was not backed up by a consensus of climate scientists, your point wasn't one of them, so you are back to zero people.

 

[JoeEllison]

First, you have no information what my religion is or not.

Second, transforming somebody's name is just childish.

Third, you already know I haven't seen the film, unlike yourself I prefer to look at the data, not have my mind made up major media outlets whose first aim is not to educate you but to make money by selling to you or not upsetting large advertisers.

Fourthly, in the UK, the film was subject to a high court action which found nine points which was not backed up by a consensus of climate scientists, you point wasn't one of them, so you are back to zero people.

And #5, just like a creationist, he pretends that the people who hold the opposing viewpoint do so from some sort of religious belief... mostly, I guess, because that is how he forms his own views.

#6, also like a creationist, he pretends that we worship someone, in this case AL Gore, whose name tokie is incapable of spelling correctly...


... proving once again why right-wingers hate education so much: because they themselves are incapable of learning.

 

[Tokenconservative]

problem is... i've not run into anyone, even on the net, who believes that version. i'd ask you to find me one example, but i know you're tooo LAAAAAAAZYYYY to do LIIIIIINNNKKss.

hmmmmm... "not very doctrinaire." that's because i don't adhere to ANY doctrine whatsoever. more than i can say for you.

who cares, well *i* do for one. *i* want to know what is really happening, unlike you, apparently.

WHOA THERE, PARDNER. just coz you're a rigid, unthinking lockstep party-line ideologue does NOT mean you have the right to assume i am.

1. I have no control over how much you limit your contact with others on the net or elsewhere.
Maybe you should get out more?

2. If you, as you claim, hold the views you claim, then no, you don't hold to any doctrine involving AGW. We shall see, I suppose.

3. I know what is "really happening."

4. No, actually, I do have that right. And I don't leap to that conclusion with you...you've demonstrated it here and elsewhere.

Tokie

 

[zeusbheld]

Second, transforming somebody's name is just childish.

but it can be so much fun! for example, in Thailand, a "tokkae" (spelled tokay in the west) is a kind of large-ish gecko that bleats incesssantly. just sayin'.

 

[Mobyseven]

And there it is.

Tokie

There what is? How very obtuse of you.

You tried to imply that those of us who oppose your view are living in a bizzaro world where perhaps the sun rises in the west. I pointed out that it's a matter of perspective - the sun doesn't actually rise at all, the rotation and movement of the Earth manufactures the illusion of a rising sun.

You insist on taking a position unsupported by evidence while attacking a position not held by any of your opponents. If there was a response other than ridicule you were looking for, you went the wrong way about getting it.

 

[zeusbheld]

1. I have no control over how much you limit your contact with others on the net or elsewhere.
Maybe you should get out more?

tell me where i can find these mythical beasts you say are everywhere, and maybe i will get out more. can you tell me where i can find unicorns? i bet you know that too.

2. If you, as you claim, hold the views you claim, then no, you don't hold to any doctrine involving AGW. We shall see, I suppose.

if you hold the views you claim, *you* hold to a doctrine. rigidly.

3. I know what is "really happening."

and given that you rigidly ignore scientists in matters of science, exactly how did you come upon this enlightenment? "common sense"?

4. No, actually, I do have that right. And I don't leap to that conclusion with you...you've demonstrated it here and elsewhere.

is this more of your "common sense"? impressive, as usual. apparently your definition of a "liberal" is someone who doesn't agree with "tokie".

 

[David Rodale]

Hmm...But if we join Greenpeace, we get a membership card. No "card carrying contrarians" huh?

A shadow enemy to those immersed in pseudoscience.

You could always go to a glacier, strip naked with hundreds of other nutbags to help save the planet.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, isn't this all pretty?

Right wing zealots trying to beat people up with straw men.

Really Sad.

Truth is that there is only one reality, no matter how much you try you cannot bend it as you will by pure belief.

Its a good thing that you folks are not going to be making these decisions much longer.

 

[Acleron]

but it can be so much fun! for example, in Thailand, a "tokkae" (spelled tokay in the west) is a kind of large-ish gecko that bleats incesssantly. just sayin'.

Just listened to one. Sounded to me like flatulence

 

[mhaze]

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.
I hope that there are some, in both groups, who are willing to look at the evidence. Assuming, as I believe is reasonable, that there is an anthropogenic component to global warming, it none-the-less is not at all clear as to what specific activity or group of activities is responsible for this. Clearly such information would be vital to designing countermeasures. Wouldn't it be typically human if we assumed CO2 to be the culprit, somehow reduced CO2 at great cost, and find that it wasn't the problem, but only a by-effect? And finding this out too late?
Meanwhile, massive destruction of forests and fisheries continues unabated, oil reserves become increasingly depleted, and a clearly unsustainable population continues (in spite of some slowing of the rate) to grow.
Are these a unitary problem? or are they separable, just equally severe?
These are issues which require careful thought and scientific study, not dogmatism and name-calling.

I recommend we end this thread.

Comments all agreed with, recommendation seconded.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Look, I agree with

I recommend we end this thread.

This thing serves no purpose other than mudslinging and giving mhaze, Rodale and Tokie attention by giving them a stage for their cute little one-liners (read: let's stop feeding the trolls).

 

[zeusbheld]

if we're all agreed that we're done here and the thread is useless, lets all just go!

last one out, turn off the light.

 

[Tokenconservative]

but it can be so much fun! for example, in Thailand, a "tokkae" (spelled tokay in the west) is a kind of large-ish gecko that bleats incesssantly. just sayin'.

It's also, since it's not just a misspelling, a violation of TOS.

Someone could report you. I got suspended for doing this.

Just sayin.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

There what is? How very obtuse of you.

You tried to imply that those of us who oppose your view are living in a bizzaro world where perhaps the sun rises in the west. I pointed out that it's a matter of perspective - the sun doesn't actually rise at all, the rotation and movement of the Earth manufactures the illusion of a rising sun.

You insist on taking a position unsupported by evidence while attacking a position not held by any of your opponents. If there was a response other than ridicule you were looking for, you went the wrong way about getting it.

...and there it is, part deux.

Tokie