I watched an incovenient truth last night
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
but trees were here long before you and will be here long after you are gone.
you actions while here are meaningless to the overall history of the earth.
Jesus...I've backed of on the spelling nazi in me, but is english your first language?
But why is it such a BAD "adgenda" (sic)? Why is wanting to improve the environment a bad thing? Is it a message vs. messenger thing?
What does he have to gain by people listening to what he has to say?
And who is paying them? Seriously? Who?
And, no it is not ad hominem to point out that someone may be expressing their opinion in a way that is beneficial to their pocketbooks. They never come out and say that they are funded by oil companies. Why do they have to hide it? The "science" should speak for itself, yet what we regularly see is shoddy science from those who are funded by oil, in an attempt to muddy the waters. We also find position papers written before any "science" is done that state what their conclusions are. (There's some compelling stuff on this in Mooney's book, RWOS).
well, not at the moment apparently... i dont see any widespread dying going on as a result.
The point is that that particular tree was felled by my saw and my actions. If I continue to saw down trees, they will continue to fall. If I don't change my actions, more and more trees fall. When those trees no longer shade my house and my cooling bill goes up in the summer, well, how can that be my fault?
Edit: And if you don't think man's actions can impact the Earth, I suggest you set off some nukular bombs and then see if you are right or not.
Well, if you could remove yourself from your Church and learn about the real science. But you don't want to know about anything that's contary to your faith now do you...
that's why you have to make statements like that.
and how many nukler 'splosions has man set off since Trinity..??? hundreds?
and we are still here...
Hey... you Church of Global Warming zealots are welcome to do your thing, but it is pretty damn funny when you piss on the gawd warriors on here for following their faith...
You know what? I don't think you believe in anything but money and weeping mortar and bad cocktails and even worse clothing. I think your a soul-less troll who sits here enjoying the contradictions you create and baffling others who post here with your intentional bullsh1t.Hey... you Church of Global Warming zealots are welcome to do your thing, but it is pretty damn funny when you piss on the gawd warriors on here for following their faith...
Bravo, fvckface.
lthumbsdown: 
N8, did you ever read _The Lorax_ to yr daughter when she was young?
on 2nd thought, have her read it to you.
on 2nd thought, have her read it to you.
the only documentry i've seen of Al Gores is about "Man Bear Pig" half man half bear and half pig.
Its real guys im totally cereal!
Its real guys im totally cereal!
I think he was too busy doing coke and dancing to Survivor albums.
My name is Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means. But nice sidestep, again.
:yawn:
say hello to my (new) little friend. goodbye, pussy!
The government? Environmental agencies? Competition for grants is very competitive, and a while I believe that most scientists are out for the general advancement of mankind, I do not make any allusion that a driving force behind science is a scientists desired to continue to get paid so they can eat. And sometimes, that may mean favoring one interpretation over another in order to appease the "Scientific body".
Now, I'm not saying that there is a consipiracy to promote Global Warming as "The Truth". But to ignore the fact that scientists also do get paid, and in fact compete heavily to get paid, while pointing out that fact in the opposition is disingenuous.
Wow.....you're stupid
Finally! I was waiting for someone to bring up the fact they, the scientists, are behind all of this. What with all their money grubbing "research" and "salary-earning".... It's all a sham.
Commie.
What?
There are literally thousands of studies out there that confirm that man is contributing to and increasing global warming. There are very few that counter that, and those have mostly been debunked. You do the math.
Besides, what is "real science"? Is it "sound science"? We all know about the groups that fight against GW and their position statements. Do you really think that deciding on a conclusion and then shoehorning facts to support that conclusion is "real science"?
N8 =along with that as well... don't believe a wanna be in power again ex-politician with an adgenda based film...
Wanna be, last I checked he was Vice for 8 years and in the senate previously. And one more thing, he won the popular vote and if it weren't for conservative control in FL, he would be our president right now. Agenda?? I think his agenda is providing information and HARD science that you speak of. Last I checked, he's wasn't in the running for office.
"you actions while here are meaningless to the overall history of the earth."
One of the most ignorant statements I have ever read from you, BRAVO!!!!!!!!
Wanna be, last I checked he was Vice for 8 years and in the senate previously. And one more thing, he won the popular vote and if it weren't for conservative control in FL, he would be our president right now. Agenda?? I think his agenda is providing information and HARD science that you speak of. Last I checked, he's wasn't in the running for office.
"you actions while here are meaningless to the overall history of the earth."
One of the most ignorant statements I have ever read from you, BRAVO!!!!!!!!
They get paid to contradict what the government wants them to say? Yeah, and they'll continue to get funding for it, right? Like Hansen and NASA, who had their funding cut for climate studies, probably because the government didn't like their findings. Or, take the case of the EPA and other regulatory agencies that have found stricter and stricter rules and guidelines designed to shut them up so that they don't espouse anything the government is politically opposed to, regardless of the science.
Scientists do get paid to do what they do, but their science is susceptible to actual real world observation and testing. One side makes the grade, the other doesn't.
Edit: Oh, and how much do you think scientists get paid? Is it the life of glamour and riches? Do they get paid as much as industry hacks that sow the seeds of confusion in people like you?
How is it ignorant?
Earth's history is long and will be here long after us. As for global warming, it won't destroy the planet, just us. So, yeah, nothing we do bothers the planet in the long-run.
if by 'the planet' you mean the rocks and crap, then sure.
if by 'the planet' you mean the complex ecosystem, well that's a different story.
i'm surely not suggesting that extinction has never occurred, but i'd be willing to bet it's never been at the same rate of the last 50 years in the absence of a cataclysmic (ie, asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs) event.
if by 'the planet' you mean the complex ecosystem, well that's a different story.
i'm surely not suggesting that extinction has never occurred, but i'd be willing to bet it's never been at the same rate of the last 50 years in the absence of a cataclysmic (ie, asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs) event.
It is possible tha we can affect at least the nature of rocks and crap. The crust is basically a buyant floating laying. Melting glaciers and erosion can unweight areas causing changing in volcanic activity.
I eat less beans.
!!!!!
i haven't seen it, but i've stopped feasting on orinoco river dolphins.