Please point out the lies that have been fed to me by others. If they are indeed lies I will cease the practice of passing them on to others.
Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.
- Thread starter B_JQblonde
- Start date
Please point out the lies that have been fed to me by others. If they are indeed lies I will cease the practice of passing them on to others.
Lex
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Posts
- 8,253
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 118
- Points
- 268
- Location
- In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Lex,
Every statement you have made in this thread.
Act Accordingly.
We're waiting with baited breath.
Please point out one, explain how you know it to be a lie, and I will correct it.
Otherwise, as I've kindly asked before, please discontinue spamming the thread with your pointless personal insults.
Lex
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Posts
- 8,253
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 118
- Points
- 268
- Location
- In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Lex,
The fact that MANY have pointed out that you are regurgitating right-wing propaganda about the environment is not a insult, but a FACT.
That you can not see this propaganda as the lies that they are is both sad and insulting (to those of us who believe in science and know better).
Also--I post when and how I want to.
That you can not see this propaganda as the lies that they are is both sad and insulting (to those of us who believe in science and know better).
Also--I post when and how I want to.
I'll repeat my request. Please point some specific lie that I've told and your evidence that said post is a lie.
I'm getting the distinct impression you're a liberal airhead with very little knowledge of this subject matter beyond what you've been spoonfed by the left.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Posts
- 41,182
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 41,610
- Points
- 718
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Gillette
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Posts
- 6,214
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 95
- Points
- 268
- Age
- 52
- Location
- Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Are you familiar with the term "projection," if not, you should look it up.
Let me help you:
Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."
The last bastion of the left wing is Academia . TO believe these climate scientist don't have a political agnda is naivete of the worst kind. I'm guessing the difference between you and I is I know that, you don't.
For whatever reason, this global warming thing has become a HUGELY political issue . The debate thus far has been dominated by the left.
They are really working the ' it's a consensus so stop questioning us" angle.
It's only recent that a few more moderates have joined in the discussion.
Being the natural skeptic I question all this so called 'consensus' science.
Even moreso, I question the solutions. As I've brilliantly and famously stated before, I have little or no faith in the Government to come up with a workable scheme to remediate carbon emissions in any meaningful way.
Several people have pointed out to you, JQBlonde, that the evidence for global warming and its negative consequences have been studied and empirically verified by scientists around the world. So, your claim that we are all buying into an American liberal political agenda is just wrong. It misunderstands and misrepresents the issue. Surely, not everyone is going to agree on how to solve the problem of globabl warming, but any reasonable person, in light of a preponderance of evidene, would support efforts to reduce our negative contributions towards globabl warming.
It's pathetic that you thrive on negative attention, arguing, and political debate rather than on Reason.
Does change frighten you? Is altering our lifestyle to pollute less such a threat to your way of life? Are you lacking in ability to change your relation to the environment and adapt? No Liberal - not "Jowls Gore" nor the Democratic party - is telling you what to do, if being told what to do is turning you off. People are appealing to your sense of Reason and asking you (and everyone else) to consider and adopt changes that mitigate Man's contributions to global warming.
Politics is not to improve the way of life of the people its about how to stay in power and how to get cash in. They will tell you what you wanna hear.
Global warming is a fact and so they talk about it but do they do something about it?? Not realy and why, because the world is ruled by the oil industry ( they pay loads of cash to election programms ) The state gets in so much cash from tax on fuel how can they fill that hole if we dont use oil based fuels any more?
You can see when a politician lies..... its the moment his lips start moving.
Global warming is a fact and so they talk about it but do they do something about it?? Not realy and why, because the world is ruled by the oil industry ( they pay loads of cash to election programms ) The state gets in so much cash from tax on fuel how can they fill that hole if we dont use oil based fuels any more?
You can see when a politician lies..... its the moment his lips start moving.
Ok , what 'efforts' ?
Let's stipulate that you and I don't agree on the science.
But what effforts should I support????
Because corporate lobbyists and elected officials with conflicts of interest have made it into one. It's really not that mysterious. The fact that you can't explain why it has become a political issue is extremely telling. You are trying to explain motivation by using the "just because" argument. This should not be an adequate explanation for anyone intelligent or anyone who wants to seriously consider the issue.
Also, you have yet to state anything brilliantly in this thread. Though I agree in general our current government is ill-equipped to handle just about anything... why is that a good argument to not do anything? Like I brilliantly :snicker: stated before, this line of thinking leads to anarchy. Because our governent is inept, we should just tell them to do absolutely nothing? Then why not disband the United States government completely and go back to a hunter/gatherer society? Or would you prefer that we just do away with government and let the oil companies run everything? I guess that would be more in line with the arguments you have made thus far.
The only angle being worked here is by you and the other tools of the right who believe their bullshit. That angle is that global warming is a debatable issue and not a generally accepted scientific fact. There are memos and e-mails and other documented evidence proving that this is the strategy of the oil and coal lobbyists. It's all there plain as day if you take your blinders off. If you really are a natural skeptic, you would question this horseshit, too. But you are obviously only skeptical of what you see as being "liberal," because you are all too eager to accept the crap from the other side of the issue.
You guessed wrong. I'll help you out. There are many many differences between you and I, but the most salient one on these boards anyway is probably that you're retarded, and I'm not.
Sure I did. I explained that academia is a bastion of left wing ideology.
After spending ~ 20 years in the higher education industry , I can tell you that without equivocation. The oild industry came under attack and they are reacting naturally- they are fighting back.
By the way, do you notice anything different about Big Oil's stance on this issue lately??? tap ....tap....tap.....tap...
Wait. Did you just ask why I thought it would be wise to skip paying a humongous amount of taxes to produce little or no results??
Sorry but I'm not going to jump on this band wagon.
Can I start off by saying that I am pro environmental issues and support cutting human generated emissions into the environment but reading this thread gets me so angry. So many of you are acting as though there is no cause for debate here. There is!
As for the arguement that 'scientists all agree' about global warming; that's laughable. Scientist generally discover whatever the organisation funding their research want them to find. The scientific community is more split on this issue than you people are
I have read a lot about the GW issues over the past few months and the conclusion I've come to is that although GW still hasn't been proven there is enough observational evidence for us to assume that it is probable.
Therefore we need to take measures to limit our carbon emissions.
I know some of you are going to get all stroppy because I said GW hasn't been proven please bear in mind a few points,
O-zone layer - Mankind has never observed the Ozone layer without holes - we assumed that it once didn't have them (never a good thing). And over the past 10 years the holes in the Ozone layer have been seen to get bigger and smaller seemingly at random. This has led to a new theory that it was never a singular sheet that covered us but more like a colection of gas which moves freely. We have no idea if it has got smaller over the years (as we can't measure it's total volume, only its blanket coverage)
Ice caps - Again, through observational evidence only we assumed that as the surface of the ice caps had apparently warmed by 1degree on the surface and some bits of the caps were becoming unstable that the ice caps were shrinking. That's just plain wrong -
A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.
CFC's - We assumed that our environment couldn't release or neutralise CFC's because we couldn't replicate that effect in a laboratory environment. The idea was that because CFC's have a life span of 50-100 years they would stay in our environment until about the year 3000. Well guess what, they didn't. There are still CFC's in our stratosphere but only relative to the amount the 3rd world still uses. Therefore CFC's- although not a good thing- were far too over hyped by the scaremongers
There are just 3 areas where the latest environmental band wagon of its time got things pretty wrong.
As I said at the start, I think we should limit our CO2 emissions, not because they are definately dangerous but because there is evidence that they probably are
Can I start off by saying that I am pro environmental issues and support cutting human generated emissions into the environment but reading this thread gets me so angry. So many of you are acting as though there is no cause for debate here. There is!
As for the arguement that 'scientists all agree' about global warming; that's laughable. Scientist generally discover whatever the organisation funding their research want them to find. The scientific community is more split on this issue than you people are
I have read a lot about the GW issues over the past few months and the conclusion I've come to is that although GW still hasn't been proven there is enough observational evidence for us to assume that it is probable.
Therefore we need to take measures to limit our carbon emissions.
I know some of you are going to get all stroppy because I said GW hasn't been proven please bear in mind a few points,
O-zone layer - Mankind has never observed the Ozone layer without holes - we assumed that it once didn't have them (never a good thing). And over the past 10 years the holes in the Ozone layer have been seen to get bigger and smaller seemingly at random. This has led to a new theory that it was never a singular sheet that covered us but more like a colection of gas which moves freely. We have no idea if it has got smaller over the years (as we can't measure it's total volume, only its blanket coverage)
Ice caps - Again, through observational evidence only we assumed that as the surface of the ice caps had apparently warmed by 1degree on the surface and some bits of the caps were becoming unstable that the ice caps were shrinking. That's just plain wrong -
A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.
CFC's - We assumed that our environment couldn't release or neutralise CFC's because we couldn't replicate that effect in a laboratory environment. The idea was that because CFC's have a life span of 50-100 years they would stay in our environment until about the year 3000. Well guess what, they didn't. There are still CFC's in our stratosphere but only relative to the amount the 3rd world still uses. Therefore CFC's- although not a good thing- were far too over hyped by the scaremongers
There are just 3 areas where the latest environmental band wagon of its time got things pretty wrong.
As I said at the start, I think we should limit our CO2 emissions, not because they are definately dangerous but because there is evidence that they probably are
Let me guess... you're just fine with paying far far far more tax money to fight an unecessary and pointless war in Iraq?
awwwwwwwwww, now that wadn't nice.
Couldn't you have gotten one your superkoolkid pals to come on this thread and say how smart you are and how retarded I am ??
It sounds so tacky coming from you.
:tongue: :biggrin1:
I didn't think it was pointless and unneccesary. If I had thought so, the answer would be 'no'.
Can I explain this, what I meant is that GW caused by our emissions is probable. I accept that the world is getting warmer but then again the world has got hotter and colder since the day the earth was born. What hasn't been proven is that we are causing this latest small increase
