I just heard the stupid comment of the week. by AURaptor

Obviously the British-Commie-Nazi-Liberal-Jews used their left-wing mind Kontrolen to genetically engineer reptiles with internal genitalia in a grandios plan for Liberal cowardice to create war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 3:44 AM

STINKINGROSE

No really, it's true!! I read it online!
The CIA is training alligators ('cause they're US critters) to take depleted uranium and turn in into little atomic bomb eggs, then lay them like land mines all around the area of conflict. That's why you have to be able to tell if it's a male or female. If you feed it to a male he just gets squishy and glows in the dark. The ony serious roadblock they've run into so far is getting the gators to mark where they left the eggs on a map.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 3:57 AM

America loves a winner!

I realized this post wasn't a monumental issue, but I was so annoyed that this guy would take time to spread his ignorance on such issues for all to hear......grrrrr!! While 99.9999 % of the world could care less about croc's cocks and the like, this clown seems to have figured it all out, with no help from the likes of Steve Irwin, aka The Croc Hunter

I guess what really bothers me is that there are folks out there in radio land who are nodding their heads in agreement w/ this moron, as if they've just been privy to some tightly held secret.

For those folks, I would reccomend , no DEMAND that they read both of these books before making any major life decissions.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:58 AM

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:56 AM

allrighty then

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 7:02 AM

LISSA37

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
How did his brain even learn human speech?

**********************************

**********************************

Good call, Phoenix. I love that line!

Stinkingrose - the mental image of a squishy glowing 'gator is quite amusing... LOL. Are you serious? The whole concept is kind of sad, though... not to mention odd.

*****
"I'm a leaf on the wind..." - Wash

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 7:56 AM

22CLAWS

Entirely pointy.

I live in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Yeah, it sucks.

Shrugs.
22

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:36 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO

Yes, some scientist are wrong about global warming. BFD. That most of the clowns who pretend they are scientist when in fact they have no degrees in the relevent science disciplines connected to the issue of global climate somehow escapes the sheeple in the media and the general public.

The Earth gets warmer and cooler over time. That's no secret. But the chicken littles and anti-capitalist all seem to have it figured out, that most of the blame lies w/ one country, the USA.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Yes, some scientist are wrong about global warming. BFD. That most of the clowns who pretend they are scientist when in fact they have no degrees in the relevent science disciplines connected to the issue of global climate somehow escapes the sheeple in the media and the general public. The Earth gets warmer and cooler over time. That's no secret. But the chicken littles and anti-capitalist all seem to have it figured out, that most of the blame lies w/ one country, the USA.

And there you have it. Unwrapped, world-renowned global climate scientist, has provided the scientific community and the world at large his expert scientific opinion. I guess the global climate scientific community can disband now, as they aren't doing real science with the Unwrapped stamp of approval.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:39 PM

KANEMAN

Auraptor....Try not to use the word sheeple to much...I love that most people are unaware they are sheeple or don't know what it means shhhhhh!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yes, some scientist are wrong about global warming. BFD. That most of the clowns who pretend they are scientist when in fact they have no degrees in the relevent science disciplines connected to the issue of global climate somehow escapes the sheeple in the media and the general public.

The Earth gets warmer and cooler over time. That's no secret. But the chicken littles and anti-capitalist all seem to have it figured out, that most of the blame lies w/ one country, the USA.

Well that’s the problem isn't it AU. The scientist that support global warming, nearly all, in fact pretty much all the scientists with degrees in that area of expertise, the ones that don't (the ones that Bush, and you (surprise surprise) believe) are not only in the minority but also rarely have credible credentials at all, let alone in the relevant fields of expertise. So really you aren’t interested in science until it tells you what you want to hear.

One last thing, show me, once ever where the climate has changed as quickly as it has recently, I know, that's unfair since it hasn’t, but there you go, that's what happens when you are wrong.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 4:05 PM

America loves a winner!

citizen, rue.. you folks believe in the fairy tale of global warming all you want. i personally don't give a fuck. But the danger lies in how this myth is being promoted more and more, causing gov'ts to tax more and more under the guise of a false issue. THAT's what pisses me off most. Global warming is nothing more than a massive $$ grab, and it's the poor who are getting hurt the most. But since you're all in love w/ big gov't, you simply see it as a necessary evil. For evil is indeed exatly what it is.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 4:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well let's see. You slam someone for making truly ignorant comments on scientific topics. And then you make truly ignorant comments on scientific topics yourself.

Do you suffer from irony deficiency?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 4:48 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well let's see. You slam someone for making truly ignorant comments on scientific topics. And then you make truly ignorant comments on scientific topics yourself.

Do you suffer from irony deficiency?

The problem you suffer from is confusing real science w/ pop pseudo science. Of course, talking about global warming in the middle of summer only confuses the issue that much more. Its the middle of SUMMER. It's SUPPOSE to be hot. Duh! But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN. That hundreds of yrs ago, it was far more suitable for growing crops and raising livestock than today. Long before the Industrial revolution.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Its the middle of SUMMER. It's SUPPOSE to be hot. Duh! But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN.

To what are you referring? Please quote the post you appear to be answering.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 9:34 PM

SOUPCATCHER

First off, Coast to Coast ROCKS!!!

When I was driving back and forth between eastern Washington and Los Angeles through some pretty desolate terrain (coming down the backside of the Sierras) there was always one constant at night: an AM radio station in range of my car playing Coast to Coast. Driving along late at night when I hadn't seen a car in quite a while thinking, "Shit. We're all going to die because of X," where X was the topic of the show.

Brings back memories.

Second off, I'm not surprised, at all, that the caller had serious reality issues. It was kind of hit and miss with the callers, from what I remember.

Third off, with respect to global climate change, I know that weather is not the same as climate and that changes in local temperature are really no indicator of climate change but:

IT'S BEEN SO FUCKING HOT THE PAST WEEK I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO THINK

(102,97,93,97,99,106,108)

Sometimes not having AC or ceiling fans and having pets (so we can't just lock up the house and head to an air conditioned space) and working from the house just plain sucks.

That is all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 23, 2006 10:27 PM

Quote:

The problem you suffer from is confusing real science w/ pop pseudo science.

No AU, that's the problem you are having.

Quote:
But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN.

Let me guess, you based that amazing bit of deductive reasoning on Greenlands name, I bet you think Icelands made of ice too.

Greenland has had it's ice cored to over 100,000 years, but since that doesn't agree with what you say I'm sure its pseudo pop science.

Greenlands glaciers are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, but again that's just pseudo pop science.

The rate of climate change is faster than an time we have data for, but since that doesn't fit with AU's belief that's just pseudo pop science.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 12:14 AM

America loves a winner!

Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.

The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.

http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm

Citizen, continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.

The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.
http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm

Citizen, continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.

Actually that's contested, something you'd know if you ever looked at sources other than the ones that support what you want to believe.

Quote:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/G/Greenlan.asp
From Iceland, Greenland was discovered and S Greenland colonized (c.985) by Eric the Red, a Norseman, who named it Greenland in order to make it seem attractive to potential settlers.

In other words saying Greenland is like saying "London's streets are paved with gold" which in case you need it pointed out is not the case. London's streets are paved with concrete and paving slabs, not gold, yet they say gold, those crazy people.

Although I'm sure you won't read this source, it not saying what you want it to and all.

Greenland was never very warm, its ice cover is more than 100,000 years old, but as I said that is just pseudo pop science to you since it doesn't support what you want to believe.

The problem is that you think that the Earth's temperature changing over time proves that global warming isn't happening. This is just a function of you playing favourites with the sources (namely the minority of scientists who happen to work for big polluters, funny that

) because those sources say what you want to hear. If you'd done one ounce of research into the subject instead of letting Bush tell you which scientist to listen to (independent scientist bad, the dentist who says what we want to hear good) you'd know that not only is the speed and general upward trend not precedent but that it closely follows atmospheric factors influenced and caused by Human activity.

But all this is pseudo pop science because it's not what you want to believe. If it was left to people like you and GWB we'd still be teaching primary school children about the correctness of the flat Earth theory and how some crazy lying scientists have this huge conspiracy trying to prove the Earth is a sphere.

So AU continue to only look at the side of the argument that supports your narrow under educated view, and remain ignorant of all other facts if they are inconvenient for you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:02 AM

I find it so amusing that the guy that got you so irate is exactly the same as you! You have both taken a few facts and misinterpretted them to make them fit an erronious hypothesis without consideration of all other factors.

He correctly states that crocodiles have no external genetalia and leaps to the assumption that this is due to mutagenesis from radiation poisoning.

You correctly state that Greenland has historiucally had a warmer climate than it has today. From this you conclude that the current rapid and continuing global climate changes are nothing to be concerned about.

Neither of you seem to know or even wish to consider all possible facts in a reasoned and balanced fashion. At least he seems to be limited by simple ignorance. You appear to be dismissing alternate points of view based on selfish greed.

I'm afraid you leave me with a greater frustration at the stupidity of the world than he does. I at least have the hope that if I met him and gave him evidence that his beliefs are erronious he might be inclined to listen.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:26 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I find it so amusing that the guy that got you so irate is exactly the same as you! You have both taken a few facts and misinterpretted them to make them fit an erronious hypothesis without consideration of all other factors.

Neither of you seem to know or even wish to consider all possible facts in a reasoned and balanced fashion. At least he seems to be limited by simple ignorance. You appear to be dismissing alternate points of view based on selfish greed.

I'm afraid you leave me with a greater frustration at the stupidity of the world than he does. I at least have the hope that if I met him and gave him evidence that his beliefs are erronious he might be inclined to listen.

While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty. Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa? It seems to me that all parties involved think they are right and are either unwilling or unable to rationally discuss alternate viewpoints. Which is why climate change is and will continue to remain a contentious issue.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:30 AM

Rampant stupidity doesn't surprise me anymore. I stopped being surprised by anything when I found that the average IQ in the US and UK is 100. 100!

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:39 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

G.W.

I find it terribly annoying that Bush/War supporters say this "If we are not aggressive and attack Iraq first, we take a huge risk with our own lives. Because THEY MAY come attack us again. We need to be proactive." or something like this. We can put up terror, color-coded alerts on our evening TV screens for this with no whining from cons. This problem MAY affect thousands in our country, how many MAY be affected by GW.

When it comes to GW. If we put warnings on TV and use scare tactics, its all wrong. If we suggest that we better become proactive on GW, it all becomes horseshit to the hardcore right wingers. I cannot f’n believe you are complaining about tax money spent AU; with the money spent on the war.

Now, AU please look at the US and abroad university systems. Look at their findings, can our precious university system be wrong on this large of a scale. As I have said before, if they are failing this badly, we have another huge problem beyond the war and GW.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:42 AM

Hear Hear PD. (edited cause I knows good gremmer and speling)

Is it just me, or does the crap this administration is saying and what they are doing sound just like what the administration was saying and doing during Vietnam?

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 5:00 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Yes, according to my Dad. Who was in Vietnam. He lost it when Nixon said "honorable peace".

Hear this:
My buddy (swear to you), one of the only hardcore conservatives I hang out with, is actually questioning this Admin now. I mean hardcore, former, cold war marine, south carolina, actually liked Strom Thurmon, "my daddy said so, so its good" conservative. That’s when you know it’s bad.

We debated global warming til I was blue in the face. So, I drug his arse to a local bio-fuels event we had recently. He actually clapped and got something out of it. A proud day for me (like converting browncoats actually). We had a dept. of energy guy (Larry Shirley) as a quest speaker. He laid out FACTS and research and gov’t plans. (no crazy liberal media to filter it in my buddy’s mind) But what really got his attention was the money saved (yes AU, taxpayer money) by not having to defend and protect that oil as it gets here from the Arabs. Larry laid those figures out too. So many reasons to change our energy policies right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 5:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty. Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa? It seems to me that all parties involved think they are right and are either unwilling or unable to rationally discuss alternate viewpoints. Which is why climate change is and will continue to remain a contentious issue.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

I'm not sure I would count Citizen as a friend as such, I have never met the guy and only occasionally chatted on line. I was more sticking up for the issue. I have had this arguement previously with AuRaptor and looked into all the evidence he presented to support his point of view and did not find them convincing in light of the 5 years of acedemic study I have put into researching evidence both for and against this issue (I am a zoologist by trade and climate change is an accepted fact in the conferences I have been attending with an overwhealming weight of evidence showing a close correlation of changes in animal ranges with changes in seasonal temperature). You just caught a small portion of this 'debate' but generally, as a scientist, I judge any arguement backed up by controlled and peer reviewed study more convincing than those that quote random websites.

But I really don't have any more time to waste on this. I have to write up a year long study I have made proving that the incidence of grass snake sightings in th UK is less than 17% of what it was 30 years ago, with a significantly more southerly distribution pattern. I will not state that this is due entirely to climate change but will suggest that it is a possibility that this could be a factor that could lead to a potential extinction of the UK reptiles. Then I would be sad (or possibly my children would).

___________________

Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 5:10 AM

Emma well spoketh. Need some help with the paper?

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty.

So that must mean you’re just sticking up for your friend then.

Quote:
Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa?

It's not, that was my point. I said that whether the climate of Greenland was significantly milder, or as AU put it quite warm, was contended issue, he said that it WAS green.

However if you're comparing ice cores to speculation based on the name of the place you tell me which is more reliable?

Or maybe you mean the scientists (supported near exclusivly by big polluters) who don’t think global warming is happening? Simply if they DID think it was happening it would be very reliable evidence, but since they have a vested interest in proving otherwise them saying it isn't happening is as reliable.

Also there’s a further flaw in AUs logic and his understanding of the issue, namely that the planets temperature has changed in the past so global warming isn't happening, and/or not man influenced. The issue isn't "The planets temperature has never changed and now it is!" as AU likes to straw man it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The issue isn't "The planets temperature has never changed and now it is!" as AU likes to straw man it.

What does this mean? It's an interesting phrase!

I think a lot of the contraversy over global worming comes from a misunderstanding of scientific thinking. Biologists and Climateologists and others in the 'fuzzy' sciences don't like to make definitive statements.

To make an exaggerated analogy I would be uncomfortable in saying "The sky is blue". I could say that out of a given sample of peoiple surveyed a significant number claimed to perceive the sky, at a precise moment in time when no cloud cover was present, to fall within the visual spectrum previously defined as 'blue'. Without confirmation of the absorbtion patterns of the 'cone' photoreceptors of the eyes of each of the participents surveyed we cannot be certain that liguistic variation in the classification of colour has not introduced an element of uncertainty in the results.

This is a long way from saying that the sky isn't blue and a lack of a definate positive answer should not lead to the assumption of a negative.

The case for global warming is more complex as there is actually evidence supporting both sides of the arguement. Some of that evidence has indeed been funded by companies with a vested interest in disproving the theory. Some of it was conducted under very shakey scientific principles. Some of it is perfectly valid. The weight of scientific studies, however, does support a link between human activities and global climate change. Predictions of consequense have ranged from the slight to the disastrous.

The Precautionary Principle of the Kyoto Treaty (which the US has refused to ratify) states basically that, whilst agreement cannot be reached on the scale of impact of global warming, the potential ecological damage caused by taking no action after incorrectly assuming a best case scenario far outweighs the potential economic damage of acting on the worst case scenario if this does not turn out to be accurate.

Thankyou. I feel better for getting that rant off my chest. Getting back to work now.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 6:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I got a better idea.

Fine, dismiss it all you like.

THEN tell me where the hell this endless series of tremendously brutal storms and hurricanes is coming from, and scientifically (i.e. no theological BS) explain it.

And when they get worse next year and plow the american southwest under even more viciously, explain that one too.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 6:29 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:

Without confirmation of the absorbtion patterns of the 'cone' photoreceptors of the eyes of each of the participents surveyed we cannot be certain that liguistic variation in the classification of colour has not introduced an element of uncertainty in the results.

*falls off his chair again*

OMG, that was priceless!
All this over-wording of what can be simplified into: my drink needs more ice.

Polar cap shaken, not stirred Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 6:32 AM

Emma

I love it when you talk all like smart and all!

now GET TO WORK!

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
Without confirmation of the absorbtion patterns of the 'cone' photoreceptors of the eyes of each of the participents surveyed we cannot be certain that liguistic variation in the classification of colour has not introduced an element of uncertainty in the results.

Maybe how you perceieve the colour blue is the way I percieve the colour green. Maybe the machines didn't know what the colour blue looked like, which is why they made it look like everything, no, wait, wrong movie.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:11 AM

This double post is merely a construct of your own imagination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Emma

I love it when you talk all like smart and all! now GET TO WORK!

one of the Forsaken TM

Why thank you! I shall now go on to prove that white is black and black is white (for a given level of photon absorbtion) and get killed on the next zebra crossing.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:37 AM

CHRISISALL

Ahh, you see global warming EVERY MOURNING!!!

It's called a sunrise Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:48 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
MOURNING!!!

...dying each day

was this your intention, u clever wordsmith?

no-so-morbidisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 10:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Lookit what happens when you go away for a bit ....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:15 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty.
So that must mean you’re just sticking up for your friend then.

I probably should have phrased that better. I meant to say sticking up for another Forsaken.

Quote:

Or maybe you mean the scientists (supported near exclusivly by big polluters) who don’t think global warming is happening? Simply if they DID think it was happening it would be very reliable evidence, but since they have a vested interest in proving otherwise them saying it isn't happening is as reliable.

IMHO, global warming/climate change is a highly partisan subject. How it got that way, or better yet why, is beyond me. Let's not blame 'Capitalist Pigs' or the Government. Let's not blame 'Wacko Tree Huggers' or Al Gore. Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:24 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by pdcharles:

...dying each day

was this your intention, u clever wordsmith?

I cannot tell a lie.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.

The UN and the NAS (US National Academy of Sciences) do agree. Who else are you looking for?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:41 AM

But the problem is there will never be 100% agreement. That's just not how science works (see earlier rant), and while there is even the slightest disagreement there are those whose financial interests would be hurt by cutting emissions who will always argue the point. And whilst those few are the ones in power the issue remains a deadlock whilst a potential timebomb ticks away.

___________________

Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 12:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
... there will never be 100% agreement. That's just not how science works ...

I agree completely. That's why I was wondering, since all the experts have now weighed-in, who else needs to be heard. Do you count crackpots, industry shills, or who ... I was hoping to spark enough thought to at least generate a reply.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:08 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Greenland was never very warm

You seem well adapted at putting words into my mouth. I never said, nor did my source remotely indicate, that Greenland was 'very warm', which is a subjective term. But the evidence clearly shows that Greenland was much warmer than it currently is today. We're not talking coconut trees and pink flamingos, but warm enough to sustain some seasonal farming, a wider variety of livestock, a "decent" place to live for hearty folks already accustomed to a northern lattitudes lifestyle. And all this with your precious 100,000 yr old cover, but not as ubiquitous as you'd have us believe.

I don't know which is more amusing. You presuming that I've never heard the Erik the Red's sales pitch about Greenaland being GREEN only to get folks to settle here, or that you think all YOUR scientist who promote man made global warming are as pure as the wind driven snow, while my sources are nothing more than Big Oil or Gov't shills.

If you having to think those things makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Lord knows, you do seem to need all the help you can get.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:17 PM

Well I suppose that passes for a well reasoned argument amongst you and your hillbilly redneck friends.

AU, if ever there was a person too stupid to bother talking to, you are it.

The evidence, what evidence? None you've submitted, just like every fact you've ever supposedly had you've made it up to save yourself from having to think for yourself.

I don't know what to think is more amusing, your complete inability to grasp the simplest scientific concept, or the fact that your so far up Bush's arse you're not capable of independent thought.

I don't think your sources are nothing more than big oil and Gov shills, I know your one and only source is the word of Bush. An Imbecile thinking for a moron, how perfect is that.

Repeat your mantra then resume your dribbling:
"Bush is my master, Bush is so great, and Bush will tell me who I should hate!"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:27 PM