Quote :

"you sure seem like your mind is made up"

what in the hell would give you that idea?

apparently you havent read or paid attention to ANYTHING i've said if you think that

3/20/2007 10:25:16 AM

I guess its just difficult to weed through all the sarcasm........

but the fact that the admin. felt they had to edit the report is enough to suggest that even they believe humans are affecting the climate.

3/20/2007 10:40:03 AM

Quote :

"I guess its just difficult to weed through all the sarcasm........"

more like i guess YOU already have YOUR mind made up

its funny i have probably seen a lot more data on climate change than you...yet you have somehow already seen enough to know exactly whats happening...wow what groundbreaking evidence did you see that really convinced you? Since I'm not convinced either way yet (I'd like to repeat that since you obviously missed it the first hundred times) I'd love to know what convinced you that humans are having such an effect

course all this assumes you have the fundamental scientific background to not just jump to a conclusion based on limited data...big assumption i know

3/20/2007 10:42:21 AM

^how so? you haven't posted anything in this thread not laced with sarcasm.......

My mind is made up that pumping pollution into the atmosphere/environment is bad (and alternatives should be actively pursued), yes......after that, who knows?

Quote :

"yet you have somehow already seen enough to know exactly whats happening"

plz to show me where exactly i said that....talk about not having data to back up an argument

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 10:48:11 AM

my first two posts dont have any sarcasm in them

but again to know that would require you to actually read through the thread instead of making blanket generalizations based on what you THINK my opinion is

i'd love to see a little more science talk from you than "pumping pollution into the atmosphere is bad"...now if that was all you were claiming then that would be fine...but thats not all you're claiming

Quote :

"plz to show me where exactly i said that....talk about not having data to back up an argument "

i dunno lets see...i make it abundantly clear that i am up in the air on the issue...yet my doubt alone (which you falsely perceive as denial btw) somehow convinces you that i am completely off base with my (supposed) opinion on the issue

ANY scientific commentary you have would be appreciated

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 10:49:53 AM

Quote :

"btw there IS uncertainty in the climate debate so its GOOD that you dont just lie to people and tell them that you have everything figured out "

Quote :

"How are you so aware of the profit motives of the oil lobbyists but so unaware of the profit motives of the environmentalists? You think they are completely motivated by the good of humanity?"

if it's not sarcasm, its as close as it can be.

Quote :

"now if that was all you were claiming then that would be fine...but thats not all you're claiming "

it pretty much is, that and humans are affecting the earths natural climate cycle to an extent.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 10:52:07 AM

Quote :

"if it's not sarcasm, its as close as it can be. "

once again its quite apparent that you have your mind made up...if you take straight forward statements like that as sarcasm...its clear you think anyone not completely convinced of humans' impact on climate change has some kind of other motives

any science you have would be appreciated...anything

3/20/2007 10:55:19 AM

Quote :

"i dunno lets see...i make it abundantly clear that i am up in the air on the issue...yet my doubt alone (which you falsely perceive as denial btw) somehow convinces you that i am completely off base with my (supposed) opinion on the issue"

your definition of abundantly clear must be different than everyone else's.

Quote :

"once again its quite apparent that you have your mind made up...if you take straight forward statements like that as sarcasm...its clear you think anyone not completely convinced of humans' impact on climate change has some kind of other motives"

in this situation, i'm pretty convinced your motive is trolling

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 10:56:46 AM

I AM NOT DENYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED

there is that straight forward enough for you? Maybe you can just read that first caps-locked line since you have had lots of trouble understanding simple things, like my viewpoints which have been explained in DOZENS OF EXISTING GLOBAL WARMING THREADS

now see if your brain can grasp this too

I AM NOT AGREEING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED

now please present ANYTHING scientific cause all you're doing is trolling

if you dared to question the faith of Al Gore people would point out your pothead screenname and say you've smoked yourself retarded

Quote :

"in this situation, i'm pretty convinced your motive is trolling"

your last dozen posts have been under the (false) assumption that i am some kind of global warming denyer...explain how thats not trolling

your entire argument has been against a point of view that i dont even possess...hows that not trolling?

cause if its not trolling, its just not reading and not knowing what you're talking about

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 10:59:18 AM

^ agnostic n: "a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." I have seen TreeTwista10 post this position a number of times concerning global warming--maybe some of you just don't know what "agnostic" means.

3/20/2007 11:08:49 AM

Quote :

"listen to both sides but realize the truth is somewhere in between."

You do realize that this is a golden mean fallacy, right?

3/20/2007 11:18:29 AM

you do realize that foreign governments also edit reports regarding climate change. everyone does it. get over it. [/thread]

3/20/2007 12:53:48 PM

I wonder if you Bush haters are aware tha this administration has budgeted more money for alternative energy resource development that any administration in history?

3/20/2007 9:17:29 PM

^ to be fair, that's a piss-poor comparison. of course the Bush admin has given more funding to alternative energy sources. No one gave a shit about it before 2000.

3/20/2007 9:21:59 PM

True, but it makes it harder to put him in a bad light environmentally.

3/20/2007 9:23:06 PM

No, that task was clearly shown by his sorry excuse for environmental poilicy with the Clear Skies Act which allowed for MORE pollutants being dumped into the sea and air.

3/21/2007 2:24:23 AM

^AHA, that shit was hilarious.

The first time I read a headline for that, I was like, "Oh, he's done something new for the environment..."

And then I read the article, and was all, "WAIT A MINUTE!!!"

3/21/2007 2:58:22 AM

Quote :

"I mean like it or not we can't run automobiles on good intentions and happy thoughts."

I CAN'T FEED MY FAMILY OFF OF GOOOOOD INTENTIONS!!!!

3/21/2007 3:06:46 AM

Since someone brought that quote up again, I'll share my thoughts...

Quote :

"mathman: Ever occur to you guys that the oil companies interests are our interests. I mean like it or not we can't run automobiles on good intentions and happy thoughts."

This is totally fucked up, B. You're pretty much threatening us with higher gas prices. Like, we're just supposed to tolerate anything oil companies do...OR ELSE!!!

3/21/2007 3:56:42 AM

What economically viable technology would you suggest we replace oil with today? It's not a threat of higher as prices, it's a threat of higher costs of living for all.

Electric cars would be great, except for the fact that they're expensive, have no infrastructure to support anything other than short distance trips (in city commute), take for ever to "fill up" and increase demands on an already (in some areas) overloaded electrical system.

Solar cars experience much of the same problem.

The issue at hand is that with technology the way it is, our interests are in many ways aligned with the interests of the oil companies. As much as you may hate that, it's an unfortunate truth. Spending our money to punish these companies or artificialy increae the costs is a waste of money that could be better spent on developing more efficient uses for the oil (i.e. better public transportation).

3/21/2007 8:25:41 AM

"Global Warming is not a crisis"

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12

You only need to read each speaker's opening statement (download debate transcript) to see why
Before Debate: For 29.88 % Against 57.32 %
After Debate: For 46.22 % Against 42.22 %

Why do things like this get NO press, and the worthless Al Gore is saturating the media?

3/21/2007 8:38:00 AM

^I'm stupid. What exactly is the motion?

3/21/2007 8:54:11 AM

That global warming is not a crisis. Those for the motion are those who deny that global warming is occuring, or feel it is irrevelant. Those against would be Al Gore and the IPCC for example.

3/21/2007 8:57:51 AM

^ I think for the most part it's more that they deny that global warming has been proven / can be proven to be human caused... and that the ramifications are to a large degree overstated by some alarmists.

^^ "stupid" isn't the right word Incidentally, despite being responsible for some good legitimate debate, the site isn't very accessible.

3/21/2007 9:01:48 AM

The public finally gets a chance to see that the political spin regarding climate change has been occurring on BOTH SIDES

3/21/2007 9:06:12 AM

Quote :

"^ I think for the most part it's more that they deny that global warming has been proven / can be proven to be human caused... and that the ramifications are to a large degree overstated by some alarmists."

That too.

Quote :

"Incidentally, despite being responsible for some good legitimate debate, the site isn't very accessible."

Did you read any of the transcipt??

The site is for an organization that holds debates. The results of the audience poll and the transcipt of the debate are what's available on the website. What is relevant is that a debate was held between highly credentialed speakers for both sides, and the audience favored the "skeptics" after, while holding the opinion that global warming is a crisis before the debate.

It is ridiculous to dismiss people that don't accept everything forced at them by the press as idiots.

Quote :

"listen to both sides"

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 9:22 AM. Reason : g]

3/21/2007 9:20:45 AM

Quote :

"the audience favored the "skeptics" after, while holding the opinion that global warming is a crisis before the debate. "

i'd imagine plenty of TSBers would favor the skeptics as well if they got both sides of the story like I got in school 5 years ago

or at minimum acknowledge thats its NOT the onesided issue that many make it out to be

3/21/2007 10:20:16 AM