Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
I am baffled why anybody is impressed with that and why people keep posting that spin as if there is any mathematical meaning to it. This is like taking height measuresment from a growing boy each year from 12-20, and being impressed that his height is still above the average of those earlier years. Of course we are above the 20th century average, we were in a warming trend that century. Not so much the last 17 years.
The_Man
Footballguy
LOL spin.
What about the part where it's the hottest August ever? Or the hottest summer ever? Or the oceans are at their greatest departure from average temperature ever?
There's nothing wrong with your analogy, as long as it recognizes that the boy is now measurably taller at age 35 than he was at 20. Maybe he hasn't grown as rapidly between 20 and 35 as he did between 12 and 20, but he's still taller today than he ever was before.
Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
It is not the hottest ever. It is the hottest on a very small fraction of the earth's most recent history, which is about a blink of the eye on a historic scale. We have had many many many periods much warmer and much cooler. Here is what is going on roughly, and why it is ignorant to compare it to the 20th century average and act surprised that we are still above it. It would take several decades of a substantial cooling trend to drop below that average..
Last edited by a moderator:
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
It is a simple graph. Your IT department may be blocking it because it was uploaded to tinypics, which anyone can post any picture to.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I know it's a graph. But there are a couple thumbnails below it, one of which is someone licking a ####.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I saw a poll in the news the other day that asked what is the #1 threat the US faces right now. I don't remember the exact number breakdown, but they said people who identified as Republicans saw Islamic Extremists as the number one threat. Democrats saw Global Warming as the number one threat.
I thought this was kind of an interesting poll.
I thought this was kind of an interesting poll.
Jim11
Footballguy
Even if you are completely right, I will never support the even far more centralized and authoritarian governments that would be needed to control humanity to do it. I'd much rather we just go down the path we are and see who wins and loses.Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
If you've read my previous posts I regard the massive amount of funding for climate science to be a waste of money. We need to remove all that slush funding and pour all that money into basic energy research.
So basically I view Sandia as doing useful work and the climatologists doing busy work.
Somehow you still managed to fling poo at conservatives, bravo.Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
While we're at it, what's your solution?
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Josie Maran
Footballguy
I know, right? I mean, why would people spend so much time trying to understand the world we llive in and how out actions are affecting it?
On #1, just trying to fit in...not talk over anyone who doesn't speak anything but 'monkey.'1. Somehow you still managed to fling poo at conservatives, bravo.Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
2. While we're at it, what's your solution?
On #2? How about living within our means, for starters. Consuming less...everything. Not buying or having/consuming more _________ then we need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need....are you sensing a pattern?!
I always tell people that there seems to be a direct correlation to one's income and the number of kids/animals one has. The lower one's income? The more kids...and cats/dogs/_________ running around. If everyone just had to have a net-NEUTRAL impact on our planet and economy? Problem solved. As it is? Maybe ebola or ??? will "thin the herd" a bit for us...since we obviously don't have the intelligence, willpower or empathy to do it on our own.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Because the money is better spent developing energy sources that will tamp down CO2 emissions. The world will not move away from fossil fuels until there is economic incentive to do so. Period. If those who believe that GW is present and a big problem they should be all for a Manhattan project to develop economical non carbon releasing energy sources. If the question of global warming is settled why not attack the solution instead of
on settled science?
fatness
Footballguy
99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Yeah, it's weird how a socialist would put their complete trust in Government and expect it to take care of their every need and want.99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Man
Footballguy
From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports
spreagle
Footballguy
Democrats trust Governments opinion over market forces so why wouldn't Democrats trust Governments opinion over natural forces? You could say Democrats are very distrustful of Mother Nature, in fact many Democrats hate Mother Nature for not complying with global warming models for the last 18 years and would not object to the equivalent of bombing Mother Nature (by manipulating relevant data) to force her into compliance.
Varmint
Footballguy
Not THIS people....
..."a government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" TJ
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
I can't think of a reason not to do both.Because the money is better spent developing energy sources that will tamp down CO2 emissions. The world will not move away from fossil fuels until there is economic incentive to do so. Period. If those who believe that GW is present and a big problem they should be all for a Manhattan project to develop economical non carbon releasing energy sources. If the question of global warming is settled why not attack the solution instead of
OK....so your counter to a bad campaign which features ridiculous guilt by association tactics, is to employ your own ridiculous guilt by association tactics? This is politics today and why most discussions go down hill. Everyone is more interested in terrible spin, hyperboles, guilt by associations, personal attacks, etc. Just terrible. Second-hand smoke, flat-earth society, unabomber/mass-muderers have zero to do with anything concerning what is really known about global warming and what makes sense to do about it.From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
This from the guy that is accusing tens of thousands of scientists and students and activists and politicians of fraud and deception on an incomprehensibly massive scale.OK....so your counter to a bad campaign which features ridiculous guilt by association tactics, is to employ your own ridiculous guilt by association tactics? This is politics today and why most discussions go down hill. Everyone is more interested in terrible spin, hyperboles, guilt by associations, personal attacks, etc. Just terrible. Second-hand smoke, flat-earth society, unabomber/mass-muderers have zero to do with anything concerning what is really known about global warming and what makes sense to do about it.From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, I still believe in global warming, do you?[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming arent scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports
Not true at all. My criticism of science of global warming is targeted mostly at those in the IPCC leadership. Most of the actual science behind it is very good, but the IPCC has proven time and time again they are a political organization with an agenda.This from the guy that is accusing tens of thousands of scientists and students and activists and politicians of fraud and deception on an incomprehensibly massive scale.OK....so your counter to a bad campaign which features ridiculous guilt by association tactics, is to employ your own ridiculous guilt by association tactics? This is politics today and why most discussions go down hill. Everyone is more interested in terrible spin, hyperboles, guilt by associations, personal attacks, etc. Just terrible. Second-hand smoke, flat-earth society, unabomber/mass-muderers have zero to do with anything concerning what is really known about global warming and what makes sense to do about it.From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, I still believe in global warming, do you?[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming arent scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Not true at all. My criticism of science of global warming is targeted mostly at those in the IPCC. Most of the actual science behind it is very good, but the IPCC has proven time and time again they are a political organization with an agenda.This from the guy that is accusing tens of thousands of scientists and students and activists and politicians of fraud and deception on an incomprehensibly massive scale.OK....so your counter to a bad campaign which features ridiculous guilt by association tactics, is to employ your own ridiculous guilt by association tactics? This is politics today and why most discussions go down hill. Everyone is more interested in terrible spin, hyperboles, guilt by associations, personal attacks, etc. Just terrible. Second-hand smoke, flat-earth society, unabomber/mass-muderers have zero to do with anything concerning what is really known about global warming and what makes sense to do about it.From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, I still believe in global warming, do you?[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming arent scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports
So you're not implying anything here? Just verbal runoff?
It is exaactly what I said it is. Governments/IPCC use their power to get money to folks whose work endorses the global warming theory and to defund anybody whose work tends to be skeptical of it. The IPCC works closely with magazing publishers and makes sure pro-global warming pieces get rubber-stamped even it they make questionable claims, while those critical work gets raked over the coals by reviewers and in many cases not published at all. It is not that the scientific work is 'fraud' or 'deception', it is that the pro-side of global warming is amplifed greatly while science which is critical of the theory gets squashed and defunded.Not true at all. My criticism of science of global warming is targeted mostly at those in the IPCC. Most of the actual science behind it is very good, but the IPCC has proven time and time again they are a political organization with an agenda.This from the guy that is accusing tens of thousands of scientists and students and activists and politicians of fraud and deception on an incomprehensibly massive scale.OK....so your counter to a bad campaign which features ridiculous guilt by association tactics, is to employ your own ridiculous guilt by association tactics? This is politics today and why most discussions go down hill. Everyone is more interested in terrible spin, hyperboles, guilt by associations, personal attacks, etc. Just terrible. Second-hand smoke, flat-earth society, unabomber/mass-muderers have zero to do with anything concerning what is really known about global warming and what makes sense to do about it.From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, I still believe in global warming, do you?[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming arent scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reportsSo you're not implying anything here? Just verbal runoff?
Sand
Footballguy
Because, contrary to liberal opinion, taxpayer coffers are not bottomless.I can't think of a reason not to do both.Because the money is better spent developing energy sources that will tamp down CO2 emissions. The world will not move away from fossil fuels until there is economic incentive to do so. Period. If those who believe that GW is present and a big problem they should be all for a Manhattan project to develop economical non carbon releasing energy sources. If the question of global warming is settled why not attack the solution instead of
tommyboy
Footballguy
Josie Maran
Footballguy
And of all the things that could be cut, climate research is what you're gonna go with?Because, contrary to liberal opinion, taxpayer coffers are not bottomless.I can't think of a reason not to do both.Because the money is better spent developing energy sources that will tamp down CO2 emissions. The world will not move away from fossil fuels until there is economic incentive to do so. Period. If those who believe that GW is present and a big problem they should be all for a Manhattan project to develop economical non carbon releasing energy sources. If the question of global warming is settled why not attack the solution instead of
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Luckily, the Heartland Institute is there to tell us the real truth.It is exaactly what I said it is. Governments/IPCC use their power to get money to folks whose work endorses the global warming theory and to defund anybody whose work tends to be skeptical of it. The IPCC works closely with magazing publishers and makes sure pro-global warming pieces get rubber-stamped even it they make questionable claims, while those critical work gets raked over the coals by reviewers and in many cases not published at all. It is not that the scientific work is 'fraud' or 'deception', it is that the pro-side of global warming is amplifed greatly while science which is critical of the theory gets squashed and defunded.Not true at all. My criticism of science of global warming is targeted mostly at those in the IPCC. Most of the actual science behind it is very good, but the IPCC has proven time and time again they are a political organization with an agenda.This from the guy that is accusing tens of thousands of scientists and students and activists and politicians of fraud and deception on an incomprehensibly massive scale.OK....so your counter to a bad campaign which features ridiculous guilt by association tactics, is to employ your own ridiculous guilt by association tactics? This is politics today and why most discussions go down hill. Everyone is more interested in terrible spin, hyperboles, guilt by associations, personal attacks, etc. Just terrible. Second-hand smoke, flat-earth society, unabomber/mass-muderers have zero to do with anything concerning what is really known about global warming and what makes sense to do about it.From Wikipedia:99% of the money is from government and is steered towards people who advance the cause. Why is it that corporate money corrupts and distorts opinion, but government money does not? It is an odd position to have zero faith in corporate America and total faith in government. They both have their agendas.Anthony Watts is paid by the Heartland Institute.
On May 4, 2012, the Heartland Institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, I still believe in global warming, do you?[31] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming arent scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reportsSo you're not implying anything here? Just verbal runoff?
The_Man
Footballguy
Yesterday, you said that 134 years of weather data is spin.jon_mx said:
Today you are saying that peer-reviewed scientific publications have no more credibility than documents funded by corporations whose profits are based on contributing massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Do you really think if a scientist were able to make a compelling case that global warming isn't happening, nobody would want to publish it?
Lucky for us there is a plucky band of billionaires fighting against the all-powerful group of research scientists and academics who are scheming to trick the world into believing we face a global warming threat because .... Wait, why are those scientists risking their reputations and wasting their life's work to put forward this elaborate hoax? And why are independent magazine publisher going along with the scam? What's in it for them - are millions of readers clamoring for more thrilling cover stories about global warming, to the point that magazines are making them up?
Because guess what - if it's about money, there's a lot more money to be made working for the billionaires.
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
The next time you make a coherent argument will be the first.The next time you characterize one of my arguements accurately, will be the first.Josie Maran said:
Complete BS....Yesterday I said using the average from the 20th Century to try show an upward trend on data that has been stagnant for 17 years is horrible spin. Also the point I made was not about the credibility of scientific publications vs. corporate publications. You are either a liar or not so bright.
timschochet
Footballguy
Oh bull####.On #1, just trying to fit in...not talk over anyone who doesn't speak anything but 'monkey.'1. Somehow you still managed to fling poo at conservatives, bravo.Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
2. While we're at it, what's your solution?
On #2? How about living within our means, for starters. Consuming less...everything. Not buying or having/consuming more _________ then we need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need....are you sensing a pattern?!
I always tell people that there seems to be a direct correlation to one's income and the number of kids/animals one has. The lower one's income? The more kids...and cats/dogs/_________ running around. If everyone just had to have a net-NEUTRAL impact on our planet and economy? Problem solved. As it is? Maybe ebola or ??? will "thin the herd" a bit for us...since we obviously don't have the intelligence, willpower or empathy to do it on our own.
Hey, jon, you asked me earlier to list the ways that I separated myself from progressives. Well this is one of them. As much as I respect Datonn on most issues, this kind of thing makes me sick- he seems to have bought into the notion by extreme environmentalists that we need to curtail our lifestyles as the only means to solve these problems.
It's crap. What we need is to come up with alternatives to fossil fuels. That's it. There is no need to limit consumption. There is no need to be concerned about population growth. We have barely tapped into the earth's resources yet. These people seem to hate our way of life, and they are using this issue, which is very real IMO, as a means to destroy it.
No, I'd say we could do more.Oh bull####.On #1, just trying to fit in...not talk over anyone who doesn't speak anything but 'monkey.'1. Somehow you still managed to fling poo at conservatives, bravo.Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
2. While we're at it, what's your solution?
On #2? How about living within our means, for starters. Consuming less...everything. Not buying or having/consuming more _________ then we need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need....are you sensing a pattern?!
I always tell people that there seems to be a direct correlation to one's income and the number of kids/animals one has. The lower one's income? The more kids...and cats/dogs/_________ running around. If everyone just had to have a net-NEUTRAL impact on our planet and economy? Problem solved. As it is? Maybe ebola or ??? will "thin the herd" a bit for us...since we obviously don't have the intelligence, willpower or empathy to do it on our own.
Hey, jon, you asked me earlier to list the ways that I separated myself from progressives. Well this is one of them. As much as I respect Datonn on most issues, this kind of thing makes me sick- he seems to have bought into the notion by extreme environmentalists that we need to curtail our lifestyles as the only means to solve these problems.
It's crap. What we need is to come up with alternatives to fossil fuels. That's it. There is no need to limit consumption. There is no need to be concerned about population growth. We have barely tapped into the earth's resources yet. These people seem to hate our way of life, and they are using this issue, which is very real IMO, as a means to destroy it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/30/weve-killed-off-half-the-worlds-animals-since-1970/
I am having flashbacks to Pee Wee Herman....."I know you are, but what am I." Awesome points as always.The next time you make a coherent argument will be the first.The next time you characterize one of my arguements accurately, will be the first.Josie Maran said:
