we do share a lot of opinions. which one of us is liberal? i'm not really sure - i share many views from both sides of that fake fence.

__________________
Grow Journals
The latest-> White Berry Big Bud/PPP PPP

There’s no fucking way I could ignore the shit you say. My now favorite past time is to post my comment, then your delusional response.

Furthermore, I have already explained why I respond directly to each of your comments. Add this to the list of growing comments you have failed to comprehend. As usual (actually always) you have twisted my comments inside your head, and responded to a straw man argument. (As promised, I will demonstrate this below.) Without exception during this thread, I have posted your comment, then my response. This takes, what? 1-second? You have not responded to a single question honestly. I keep saying this, and yet you lack the courage to present your discussion honestly.


I said: “I keep telling you that I don’t think any legitimate science exists, but I’ll admit it if I see it.”

Then you said: “You believe the scientists who proclaim "Crisis! Crisis!".”

Lol. You kill me dude.

I said: “I keep telling you over and over that I could find 100 scientific studies in under 2-minutes, but none of them agree with what you’re saying. You keep saying over and over that there is legitimate science but have yet to back it. The fact that I have to explain this to you on post 372 only proves your absolute delusion.”

Then you said… I shit you not… You really responded with this: “I believe the more moderate scientists who see nearly all data of every 'scientific study' as being within the natural range of climate variability.”


Questions you are refusing to answer:
1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) May I see your best scientific study please?

Answer: Do your own goddamn research.

5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?

6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say

__________________
I've been wondering around for the past couple of weeks. You know helping people out with towel safety and proper towel use. It's important.

Holy shit CC. The fact that you continually respond with the same thoughtless mantra without internalizing a single god damn thing I said is starting to freak me out. Are you really that far gone?

I’m going to keep this real simple. Let’s just start with a single question:

WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE? WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG!!!


Med & Knowm. I’ll bet you each $1,000 he can’t answer it. Drum Roll...

__________________
I've been wondering around for the past couple of weeks. You know helping people out with towel safety and proper towel use. It's important.

I posted a taste of this research in the other thread.. the one where we aren't bashing people's heads into the wall...

Oh my fucking god. How could you possibly think you’re answering a Yes-or-No question? Why is it that the people pushing this conspiracy theory can’t even internalize the simplest of things?

P.S. Are you ready to admit you’ve never seen that absolutely doltish equation used by anyone pushing GW? Incidentally, a reference, name, or guess as to where you might have seen it would be included with the answer.

__________________
I've been wondering around for the past couple of weeks. You know helping people out with towel safety and proper towel use. It's important.

May. If you want to banter with me that’s fine. But if you can’t be man enough do it without crying about how condescending I’ve been, then kindly jerk off in the corner until you can find someone to coddle you.

If you really want me to respond to your latest idiocy I will, but be prepared… you’ve backed me into a corner on this one.

__________________
I've been wondering around for the past couple of weeks. You know helping people out with towel safety and proper towel use. It's important.

I'll answer one question for now (I thought I already did?)

Once more: I...DESIRE...ALL...THE...CHANGES...YOU...DO. Everyone does. Renewable energy sources, clean up dirty industry, move to clean auto fuels...stop clear cutting and burning the forests. I just don't believe in man-man global warming.

So, if I’m, wrong: NOTHING DIFFERENT HAPPENS THEN IF I'M RIGHT. Open, capitalistic markets WILL bring about these changes in technological advancements even if legislation doesn't force them on us. Just as no one had to force anyone to stop riding horses when cars were invented, if car companies offer cleaner fuel technology with better mileage, people will buy it.

So, do you really understand what you're asking? It is widely understood that the Kyoto agreement will do little to NOTHING to mitigate climate change. Cars are really a very tiny piece of the puzzle. So, industry needs to clean up. But no one is asking industry to clean up. They’re asking them to pay a fucking carbon trading fee. Do you honestly think FAKE carbon trading between companies is going to do a goddamn thing for the environment? You're delusional.

For all your faithful green-head's talk, nothing is going to happen for the planet except to prevent third world nations from enjoying the technology you currently enjoy, you hypocrites.

You want to introduce laws to make our homes more efficient and better insulated. Fine. Build with recycled goods. Fine. Again: these do little to change CO2 prodution.

You're just like the democrats. A lot of talk of change, yet nothing ever gets done. All your legislating still equals no change in actual amount of human CO2 out gassing. Maybe renewable energy sources will help lower carbon emissions’. But I guarantee you those energy sources will be used in the future with or without climate change litigation.

So, if I'm wrong, NOTHING CHANGES. The planet will warm, but a conservative estimate of ONE FULL DEGREE over the next century is STILL NOT A CRISIS. (It raised .6 degrees over last century and we have cleaned up our technologies already and will continue to do so.) If you don’t think we can expect HUGE advancements in science, energy and recycling in the next 100 years (even without a Kyoto treaty) you must really be delusional. Just think about the state of technology 100 years ago.

If I'm right: still Nothing changes BUT the planet's middle and lower class have another tax burden thrown on their shoulders at the hands of unscrupulous politicians and the masses’ inferior I.Q.

Sig-hail environmentallists!

towlie: the problem you have is that really BELIEVE the rest of us who doubt man-made global warming are less educated than you.

somehow you dont seem to understand the statement: "capable scientists are arguing on boths sides of this issue."

I don't know how else to tell you that I looked at all the links you sent me and none of them prove a goddamn thing. most of them don't even try to. they typically just show pictures of the melting ice caps and restate the mantras.

global warming has circumstantial, at best. the planet warmed a little this century. SO WHAT?! It doesn't matter HOW MUCH melting the earth is experiencing the question is: Is man causing it? The research and EXPERIMENTATION should be centered around CO2 and its effect. To that end, CO2 has been shown to have a limit on its warming effect. I'll try to find the supporting scientific study for this.

Hm.. guess I'll repost this here...

Ok.. I was trying to stay off this topic.. but this is just too big of a problem to ignore- I'm fuckin' sick of watching their bullshit propaganda trying to get us to pay a global tax and reduce population..

First off, the sun is the hottest it has been in the past 1000 years. Also, the years with the highest global temperatures- doesn't match the years with the highest concentration of co2. The raise in temperature also came before the raise in co2.. by like a few hundred years. Yeah, make the graph span thousands of years so the sheeple don't notice the gap- it's a small gap if we make the graph this way, they won't notice..

Scientist's Explanation for Global Greenhouse Warming!

Hm.. call my crazy.. but that looks pretty normal in the grand scheme of things to me..
Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame - Telegraph
The heat's in the sun

Funny as well how the scientist in this article is predicting the sun's 'hot phase' will peak and start subsiding in a few decades... funny amount of time to be using.. seeing at the politicians are pushing for a global carbon tax over this (yes, they want to tax the air you breath because 'co2 is ruining our earth') and even more recently they're are calling to COMPLETELY HALT producing greenhouse gases AT ALL in the next few decades.. this will bring us back to primitive living... I wouldn't mind- that's what I want... however.. as far as the masses.. a lot will not survive...
World Must Cut Carbon Emissions to Zero by 2050 or Face Disaster, Studies Find
Zero carbon emissions urged in studies to stop major climate change | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA

The Wall Street Journal

Keep your propoganda straight liars!
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Plus.. temperatures have risen lately... wtf? Call me crazy, but my working brain tells me if it was the man made 'greenhouse gas' shyt that was actually causing the rise in global temperature, it would keep going up- not fluctuate spiuatically.
Opinion: Borrowing to fight a nonthreat | borrowing, despite, fight - Victorville Daily Press
Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold - Telegraph
Hawaii Reporter: Hawaii Reporter

EcoWorld - The Global Environmental Community - Nature and Technology in Harmony

Freak rain, not global warming, blamed for last year's devastating £3bn floods | the Daily Mail



If you are still blind after this.. I dunno what to tell you. -_- Apparently none of these propaganda pushers on RIU don't know how to research.. here was a little start for you..

The Wall Street Journal

^ How to make a bundle off the 'global warming crisis'...

thanks again, sexymilf.

i dont expect the 'believers' will read your 'apostate' literature though.