What's new

What can we do about Climate Change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
Yeah, all you did was state that I was wrong and you were right, and that makes me a failure.
i provided directions to a resource that demonstrates where you are wrong, that is more than mere statement...

I have no idea what makes you a failure, but I suspect it is genetic.
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
You really are a boring individual.

"look around you..."

I like looking around me... my life makes me happy, and fulfilled.

If I bore you so... stop engaging me in conversation... duh.


BTW... are you ever going to offer anything to support ANY of your assertions?
(i doubt it, since no such evidence exists, that is why you are always reduced to ad hominem arguments)
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
Do you work for EXXON, hoosier?


Exposed: Exxon funding climate denial. Yes, again

The front page of The Times this morning is just the latest sign that the tide is once again turning against the climate denial community. The newspaper reports that ExxonMobil gave £1 million to fund “organisations that campaign against controls on greenhouse gas emissions” – including several of those which made the outspoken attacks on climate scientists at the University of East Anglia.
It reports:
The scientists were exonerated this month by an independent inquiry but groups funded by Exxon have continued to lambast them. The Media Research Centre, which received $50,000 from Exxon, called the inquiry a “whitewash” and condemned “climate alarmism”.
The paper adds:
Some of Exxon’s largest donations were to groups that lobbied against a global deal on emissions being reached at the climate summit last December in Copenhagen.
This is not the first time Exxon have been caught using dirty tricks to smear climate science and climate scientists. As The Times remind us today:
In 2002 it was revealed that Exxon sent a memorandum to the Bush White House to call for the removal of Robert Watson, the atmospheric scientist who was the first chair of the IPCC. The Bush administration did subsequently lobby for Dr Watson to be replaced, which he was.
Later, in 2006, the prestigious Royal Society told Exxon to stop funding climate denial groups.
Also in their editorial today, The Times says:
The IPCC assessment reports are made available for comment in an open review process to which anyone may contribute. They attract scientists of the highest calibre and list of scientific bodies that endorse their findings should give pause to anyone whose expertise in this issue is lacking.
The IPCC is, however, a skeletal organisation… this is a global authority operating out of a broom cupboard. There is, therefore, a serious question if the huge weight of scientific opinion, on the one hand, is ranged against the huge weight of corporate funding on the other.
This exposé comes after NASA reported that this year is very likely going to be the hottest on record, and comes after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) said that last month was the fourth month in a row of record global temperatures, and that the ten warmest years on record have all been since 1995.
The Times report follows an editorial in the New York Times describing “the debunking of climategate”. It also comes after the retraction of both the “Amazongate” story and the “Africagate” story, and follows news that climate denial websites have seen their readership drop significantly. And as Left Foot Forward has already reported, public concern about climate change – both in the UK and the US – remains very high.
Even the right-wing Canadian National Post newspaper, which has championed climate sceptic arguments in recent years, now says:
Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers.
Their leader editorial concludes: “Global warming deniers are a liability to the Conservative cause”, and warns that “the (Conservative) movement will come to be defined – and discredited – by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.” (This is something I wrote about last year for the Independent on Sunday, here.)
 

gonzo`

Member
legalize pot! Can you imagine the amount of resources consumed running INDOOR growops? Electricity to run lights, aircon and other bits of equip, all the wasted water from RO machines....
 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I like the way you present my assertions. Try quotes once and awhile and you won't have to defend why you twist peoples words. Although, I understand that people with your sort of mentality do that all the time...demand folks to defend something they really didn't say or assert.

Now, go back and find the assertions that I made and perhaps I will address them.
As is, you have what I typed all fucked up, which is on par with the rest of your perceptive qualities.

Other than that, fuck off.
 
I

In~Plain~Site

legalize pot! Can you imagine the amount of resources consumed running INDOOR growops? Electricity to run lights, aircon and other bits of equip, all the wasted water from RO machines....

Exactly.

The title of this thread should read:

What can *I* do about global warming instead of this politically slanted drivel.

Isn't there a rule here somewhere about that?

That was a rhetorical question :laughing:
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
Now, go back and find the assertions that I made and perhaps I will address them.
As is, you have what I typed all fucked up, which is on par with the rest of your perceptive qualities.

Easily done.

there are those, just as credible as your prophets, that dissent from their positions.
There is lots of evidence that the earth is continuing to produce oil as we deplete it.

So once again I ask you to back up your latest bullshit, by naming these credible climate scientists who dissent, and providing evidence that the earth replenishes oil as quickly as we are using it.

I've only asked you for as much three or four times...
I have nothing fucked up.
do you even read the drivel you post?

of course oil is still being produced, but unless it is at a rate comparable to the rate of usage(as we deplete it), your original point was moot. If the dissenters are not climate related scientists, or well versed in climate science, they are not credible, and your claim is moot.
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
Exactly.

The title of this thread should read:

What can *I* do about global warming instead of this politically slanted drivel.

Isn't there a rule here somewhere about that?

That was a rhetorical question :laughing:

The word "we" does not make this discussion political... whiners who bring up politics do.
We could most assuredly invest in tech that will mitigate some of our influence on the climate,
and do so in a completely apolitical manner.

limit the discussion to non-political solutions... easily done... there are plenty of market controlled paths to solution.

but, regardless...
The planet belongs to WE not to ME.


united we prevail, separated we fail.
 
I

In~Plain~Site

The word "we" does not make this discussion political... whiners who bring up politics do.
We could most assuredly invest in tech that will mitigate some of our influence on the climate,
and do so in a completely apolitical manner.

but, regardless...
The planet belongs to WE not to ME.


united we prevail, separated we fail.

I guess you can't take the STFU already hint, huh?

Make yourself happy and turn out a light, everyone else will do as they see fit, without your opinion...cool?
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
I guess you can't take the STFU already hint, huh?

Make yourself happy and turn out a light, everyone else will do as they see fit, without your opinion...cool?

I will not stfu, hypocrite.
I will do as I see fit, like you say everyone should be able to.

I'll continue offering my opinion, as will you, most likely.
I'll also continue posting truths, and challenging bullshitters to produce evidence.


you think you have a right to repress my non-tou violating free speech?
get over yourself.
 
I

In~Plain~Site

I will not stfu, hypocrite.
I will do as I see fit, like you say everyone should be able to.

I'll continue offering my opinion, as will you, most likely.
I'll also continue posting truths, and challenging bullshitters to produce evidence.


you think you have a right to repress my non-tou violating free speech?
get over yourself.

On second thought, you better turn out 2 lights...I'm getting ready to add another 1k to my room :laughing:

There's some real truth for ya' :tiphat:

Continue on your conversation with your 'holier than thou' self :dance013:
 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Truth as speculated by the self-taught.

Being you have it in your head what the truth is, be honest and tell us that you are a big hypocrite. One that does not live in line with what his truth is. Or are the solutions to your perceived problems only for others to follow?

And stop with the disclaiming the political side of this discussion. You post up tons of stuff that is slathered in the political by the political. And after all, that is what this whole thing is about..otherwise you really should STFU and turn out your hypocritical fucking lights and stop driving your hypocritical fucking car. I suspect you have plenty of justification for your hypocritical lifestyle. Progressives always do justify each and every thing they do or say. They are never wrong, and need to bring us the truth.

Oh, and you can easily google everything I asserted. So google away, dipshit.
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran

ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain
2 relating to or associated with a particular person
ad hominem, obviously in reference to your tendency to talk about your perceptions of my shortcomings, which you do to distract from your complete lack of substantial evidence or relevant topical input.

(you know... like the assertions that you consistently fail to support)

when asked to back up your bullshit with evidence, you resort to personal insult befitting a school kid.
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
Truth as speculated by the self-taught.
I'm in good company.
Famous Self-Taught People...


List of Significant Self Taught People said:
Adams, Abigail
Adams, Ansel
Alcott, Louisa May
Allen, Paul
Allen, Woody
Amos, Wally
Anderson, Hans Christian
Ando, Tadao
Angelou, Maya
Austen, Jane
Avedon, Richard
Baldwin, James
Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Banneker, Benjamin
Bartlett, John
Bell, Alexander Graham
Ben-Gurion, David
Bentley, Wilson
Bernstein, Carl
Blake, William
Bradbury, Ray
Bragg, Rick
Branson, Richard
Browning, Elizabeth Barrett
Browning, John Moses
Browning, Robert
Buchwald, Art
Burns, Robert
Cage, John
Cameron, James
Campbell, Joseph
Capote, Truman
Carnegie, Andrew
Chandler, Raymond
Chanute, Octave
Cheever, John
Christie, Agatha
Clarke, Arthur C.
Clarke, John Henrik
Clay, Henry
Clemens, Samuel
Cleveland, Grover
Cobbett, William
Conrad, Joseph
Cooper, Peter
Cornell, Ezra
Crichton, Judy
Cronkite, Walter
Davy, Humphrey
DeLibero, Shirley A.
Dell, Michael
Dickens, Charles
Disney, Walt
Douglass, Frederick
Drudge, Matt
Dylan, Bob
Eads, James Buchanan
Edison, Thomas
Einstein, Albert
Ellison, Lawrence
Faraday, Michael
Farnsworth, Philo T.
Fast, Howard
Faulkner, William
Fessenden, Reginald Aubrey
Fitzgerald, F. Scott
Foote, Shelby
Ford, Henry
Franklin, Benjamin
Frost, Robert
Fuller, R. Buckminster
Gates, Bill
Geffen, David
George, Henry
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins
Goldman, Emma
Goodall, Jane
Grasso, Richard
Greeley, Horace
H3ad, Grat3ful
Hailey, Kendal
Haley, Alex Palmer
Harriman, Pamela
Harris, Joel Chandler
Harrison, John
Harte, Bret
Heaviside, Oliver
Hemingway, Ernest
Henderson, Hazel
Henry, Patrick
Hershey, Milton
Hoffer, Eric
Honda, Soichiro
Howe, Elias
Hughes, Catherine Elizabeth
Hughes, Robert
Huizenga, Wayne
Huxley, Thomas Henry
Irving, Washington
Jennings, Peter
Jervis, John Bloomfield
Jobs, Steven
Johnson, Andrew
Kamen, Dean
Kelly, Kevin
Kerik, Bernard
Kerkorian, Kirk
Kroc, Ray
Kubrick, Stanley
Lai, Jimmy
L'Amour, Louis
Lane, Rose Wilder
Lanier, Jaron
Lauder, Estee
Lauren, Ralph
Leakey, Richard E.
Lear, William
Lebowitz, Fran
Lessing, Doris
Lincoln, Abraham
London, Jack
Luce, Clare Boothe
Major, John
Malcolm X
Marconi, Guglielmo
McCormick, Cyrus Hall
McKinley, William
Melville, Herman
Mencken, H.L.
Monaghan, Tom
Monroe, James
Morgan, Arthur Ernest
Nightingale, Florence
O'Casey, Sean
Ochs, Adolph
Poe, Edgar Allen
Pope, Alexander
Porter, Gene Stratton
Porter, William S. -- "O. Henry"
Potter, Beatrix
Ramanujan, S.
Rockefeller, John D.
Romero, John
Roosevelt, Eleanor
Rosenberg, Bill
Ross, Harold Wallace
Rove, Karl
Salinger, J.D.
Sandburg, Carl
Sanders, Colonel Harland
Sanger, Margaret
Saramago, Jose
Sarnoff, David
Sewell, Anna
Shaw, George Bernard
Siebert, Muriel
Smith, Clark Ashton
Snyder, Daniel M.
Spencer, Herbert
Spielberg, Steven
Steel, Dawn
Stone, Edward Durrell
Tarantino, Quentin
Taylor, Jeff
Taylor, Zachary
Tesla, Nikola
Thomas, R. David
Thomas, Vivian
Tolstoy, Leo
Truman, Harry
Turner, Ted
Ustinov, Peter
Van Buren, Martin
Vidal, Gore
Washington, George
Watson, Thomas J.
Westinghouse, George
Wharton, Edith
Whitman, Walt
Whittier, John Greenleaf
Wilder, Laura Ingalls
Wilson, August
Woodull, Nancy
Wozniak, Steve
Wright, Frank Lloyd
Wright, Orville
Wright, Wilbur
Yeager, Chuck
:tiphat:


In~Plain~Site, my mother thanks you for the warm sentiments.
 
O

OrganicOzarks

I took care of global warming so you guys can go ahead and shut this thread down. There is no more debate. 5 days ago it was 102F so I turned my AC up to 74 until 10p.m. Today it was 90F. Problem solved case closed. Me turning my AC up 2 degrees for 10 hours got it to get 12 degrees cooler outside. I can't believe one of you brainiacs never thought of this with all of your knowledge and shit. :)

P.S. I should get a medal or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top