400 Scientists Say Gore & Warming Cabal Are Full Of Go Se by Jongsstraw

Note that you're quoting from a republican blog and the source of the report is...

"The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member..."

... the same folks who set energy and environmental policy based on the orders of the oil and auto industry lobbyists.

Kinda reminds me of how the AAPG gave an award to Micheal Crichton for writing a work of fiction bashing global warning. He's a scientist, right?

Whatever...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 8:28 AM

The names and opinions of the scientists don't come with a party affiliation, and you cannot simply dismiss this with an obtuse example or two.

These are the most respected people from the most respected organizations in the world on the subject.

Who's Gore got? He could help the Earth far more in terms of MAN-MADE global warming if he just kept his pie hole shut, and stopped burning trillions of gallons of precious fuel jetting all over the world to collect his awards.

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 8:46 AM

But the ones who compiled the list in this report do have party affiliation a'plenty.

To give you an idea of the standards used by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works...

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists ... is presenting its annual journalism award this year to Michael Crichton, the science fiction writer whose latest book, "State of Fear," dismisses global warming as a largely imaginary threat embraced by malignant scientists for their own ends.

"It is fiction," conceded Larry Nation, communications director for the association. "But it has the absolute ring of truth."

The book is "demonstrably garbage," Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford climatologist, said in an interview yesterday. Petroleum geologists may like it, he said, but only because "they are ideologically connected to their product, which fills up the gas tanks of Hummers."

Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.

[snip]

The book has high-profile admirers, though. One is Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09prize.html

Hey, I'm not sold on the mechanics and causes of climate change, and I'm not saying that Gore didn't do his own cherry picking. But I sure as hell won't be looking to a report posted by these Repugli Senate schmoes as evidence of anything. So there's a few scientists on the oil industry's side of the debate - of course there is! There should be folks working on each side of the theory. But there's plenty on the other side too, and I don't see this committee considering that. I don't see them taking into account how each scientist is funded, either.

The report is, like every other blog on the page you reference, one-sided rah-rah-ing of folks who've already been bought and paid for by the oil industry. It's meaningless.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:04 AM

Well then you might as well say that EVERYTHING out there is bought and paid for by somebody....somebody with an agenda. Where's the truth anymore?

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Well then you might as well say that EVERYTHING out there is bought and paid for by somebody....somebody with an agenda. Where's the truth anymore?

That is the difficulty... I like to think there was a time when devisiveness wasn't the way, and people looked at both sides of a topic like this, and someone out there is collecting non-biased stats on these studies and who funds them and such... but maybe I'm dreaming!

Anyhow, I concede that there are likely good, solid studies that counter global warming as human caused. As I said - I'm not sure myself. (Although, my grad school was funded by petroleum company fellowships, so my own opinion is suspect too LOL!) I just get worried when I see folks so obviously in the pocket of the oil companies making these one-sided arguments.

I mean, what's the danger in taking the threat seriously and being wrong? So we make our air cleaner than it strictly needs to be. So we force the oil and auto folks to open their fat wallets a little and build better stuff. So we get less dependent on foreign oil. So we fund a few yappy scientists in vain. What would that add up to - about .00001% of what we spend on this stupid war?

Compare that to the danger of not taking this threat seriously and being wrong - destruction of our environment and ourselves.

My lord, why is there even a question? (ans: those oil industry fat wallets are defending their stash...)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:27 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Where's the truth anymore?

With me.
Global Warming is part of a natural Earth cycle that man's contribution to merely speeds up some, yet does not specifically cause.
Get ready for some drought, later snow. That's the forecast for this century.

Omnipotant Chrisisall

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:33 AM

FREDGIBLET

Mal, you've pretty nailed my opinion on the matter.

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Mal, you've pretty nailed my opinion on the matter.

Woo-hoo! Consensus!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Where's the truth anymore?

With me.
Global Warming is part of a natural Earth cycle that man's contribution to merely speeds up some, yet does not specifically cause.
Get ready for some drought, later snow. That's the forecast for this century.

Omnipotant Chrisisall

Doh! I should'a known.
I could'a had a V-8!

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But the ones who compiled the list in this report do have party affiliation a'plenty.

I note for the record that the same is true for the folks, like Gore, who compiled a list of pro Global Warmers.

If your saying party affiliation invalidates any list of scientists then I'm afraid no list of scientists is valid and thus there is no evidence acceptable to either side that global warming is or is not happening. Thus the whole thing is a push and that favors the 'aint happening, so do nothing' crowd.

I again note for the record that its cold in winter, warm in summer, sometimes it rains and the wind blows, sometimes not so much. Global Warmers cite any weather cold, warm, wet, dry, as proof positive when in fact its all the same weather.

It is stunningly similar to the pre-historic man and his belief that thunder was the work of an angry God. So many liberals seem willing to toss aside reason in favor of prostration before the angry earth mother. And they'll go after anyone who refuses to embrace their zealotry.

H

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But the ones who compiled the list in this report do have party affiliation a'plenty.
I note for the record that the same is true for the folks, like Gore, who compiled a list of pro Global Warmers.

Do I not note that as well?

Hero, what I'm saying, if only you'd actually read my post, is that any study that shows only one side is BS. ANY study. We need balanced research done by people with a healthy level of skepticism - skepticism as to BOTH sides. The page Jongsstraw posted is a blog by someone like yourself - someone who's dismissed one side of the debate already. They - and you - are of no real use in the debate, because you are incapable of processing any information that disagrees with your all-done cha-ching! decision.

And really - how can it hurt to allow for the dangerous possibilities of climate change, just enough to allow folks to study it and take reasonable steps to prepare? What is your problem with that? Is it only because this is an issue taken up by the left, and you so blindly hate the left? Or are you terrified that you're being hoodwoked by evil scientists out to land a grant or two? What's the problem?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:21 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I again note for the record that its cold in winter, warm in summer, sometimes it rains and the wind blows, sometimes not so much. Global Warmers cite any weather cold, warm, wet, dry, as proof positive when in fact its all the same weather.

I note for the record that no one has said that global warming will turn the sky green, cause rain to fly from the ground to the air, cause accumulation of diamond instead of ice during ice storms or anything that falls outside the category of "the same weather".

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:23 AM

From the Study : "Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists."
--------------------------------------------
I agree that it doesn't hurt to take some steps ( which we are ) to reduce emissions, and enact laws to protect the natural environment....but it DOES hurt when Gore jets all over the globe BLAMING AMERICA for the " man-made" problem. Must be nice to shoot your mouth off knowing you're untouchable...kinda like posting here.

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:04 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
--------------------------------------------
I agree that it doesn't hurt to take some steps ( which we are ) to reduce emissions, and enact laws to protect the natural environment....but it DOES hurt when Gore jets all over the globe BLAMING AMERICA for the " man-made" problem. Must be nice to shoot your mouth off knowing you're untouchable...kinda like posting here.

This would be my main point also. Some of the measures proposed by the Global Warming believers do make sense just as good environmental policy. Everyone wants cleaner air and water. My main problem is that sound policies can't be discussed with fanatics like Gore, who would rather jet around the world waving their hands in the air shouting we're all gonna die than address our problems in a sensible manner. The air and water in the US has been getting cleaner for the last 30 years and we need to continue our progress, but Gore is part of the problem not part of the solution.

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Must be nice to shoot your mouth off knowing you're untouchable...kinda like posting here.

Ha - that's funny! I noticed how you signed your real name when you started this thread, and then offered your own time and resources to make a more balanced study of the matter instead of just posting someone else's biased blog...

Oh, wait a minute. No, you didn't do any of that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 3:37 PM

THUNDAR

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

This would be my main point also. Some of the measures proposed by the Global Warming believers do make sense just as good environmental policy. Everyone wants cleaner air and water. My main problem is that sound policies can't be discussed with fanatics like Gore, who would rather jet around the world waving their hands in the air shouting we're all gonna die than address our problems in a sensible manner. The air and water in the US has been getting cleaner for the last 30 years and we need to continue our progress, but Gore is part of the problem not part of the solution.

AMEN!

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 3:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Where's the truth anymore?
With me.
Global Warming is part of a natural Earth cycle that man's contribution to merely speeds up some, yet does not specifically cause.
Get ready for some drought, later snow. That's the forecast for this century.

Omnipotant Chrisisall

You got that right. Except about the man's contribution crap. That's horse radish.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

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

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 4:02 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"

I remember hearing about glabal warming in my teens... only a few folk believed it was going to happen - most of the community were poo pooing the idea...

Then in my 20s things started to happen where I live - this huge hole in the ozone layer was a fact and it was right over where I live... skin cancer rates soared... I never ever used to burn in summer - I was well into my 20s the first time I got sunburn!! I spent my teens sitting on the beach all day for days on end wearing only Reef Oil!! (Oil!!! Not sun screen!!!) and all I got was browner and browner! Now I wear factor 30 and a hat and keep out of the sun as much as possible - as do most younger folk - and we burn in about 20mins... that's not go se! That's a fact!

Then our drought got so bad we are being told to plan never to come out of it! What the hell? Is this a drought or a climate change?

I am sorry - no matter how generally respected these scientists are I have to express my humble belief that they are setting the cause of reversing global warming back and giving those who can't be bothered making the effort to reduce green house gas emissions an excuse to remain apathetic...

In my very humble - completely un-autohorised opinion, and with all due respect to those who have an alternative opinion... these scientists are full of go se and talking through their pi gu!

Sorry - but there it is... now I am going to brave some flash flooding to get to the shops - don't know what is scarier - the flooding or the people at the shops today!!

CPT Magda Martin, CO of India Co. (Australasia)
www.myspace.com/lady_magdalena
www.crazypurplewombat.blogspot.com
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=603506986

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

Friday, December 21, 2007 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Must be nice to shoot your mouth off knowing you're untouchable...kinda like posting here.
Ha - that's funny! I noticed how you signed your real name when you started this thread, and then offered your own time and resources to make a more balanced study of the matter instead of just posting someone else's biased blog...

Oh, wait a minute. No, you didn't do any of that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

You're right of course. I didn't do it with intent or malice. I will correct it. Merry Christmas!

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
It is stunningly similar to the pre-historic man and his belief that thunder was the work of an angry God. So many liberals seem willing to toss aside reason in favor of prostration before the angry earth mother. And they'll go after anyone who refuses to embrace their zealotry.

That’s is exactly how it seems. I generally accept the idea that industry could be influencing climate, although I’m not sure the evidence is really strong enough to bear that out yet, or that it ever will be, but it makes sense. However, it does seem like there is a crowd of people who usually adhere to the doomsday theory and generally tend to be Left of center who take the idea of global warming as dogma in some new quasi-neo-pagan earth worship.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s is exactly how it seems. I generally accept the idea that industry could be influencing climate, although I’m not sure the evidence is really strong enough to bear that out yet, or that it ever will be, but it makes sense. However, it does seem like there is a crowd of people who usually adhere to the doomsday theory and generally tend to be Left of center who take the idea of global warming as dogma in some new quasi-neo-pagan earth worship.

It hardly seems fair to be casting people left of centre as unthinking irrational extremist zealots.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by magdalena:
I remember hearing about glabal warming in my teens... only a few folk believed it was going to happen - most of the community were poo pooing the idea...

Then in my 20s things started to happen where I live - this huge hole in the ozone layer was a fact and it was right over where I live... skin cancer rates soared... I never ever used to burn in summer - I was well into my 20s the first time I got sunburn!! I spent my teens sitting on the beach all day for days on end wearing only Reef Oil!! (Oil!!! Not sun screen!!!) and all I got was browner and browner! Now I wear factor 30 and a hat and keep out of the sun as much as possible - as do most younger folk - and we burn in about 20mins... that's not go se! That's a fact!

Perhaps. But unless you live at the North Pole where that huge hole in the ozone is, it’s very probable that the huge hole in the ozone isn’t that much of a factor. One might argue that the ozone concentrates have been decreasing globally, but not enough to result in the kind of dramatic affect your talking about and just because upper level ozone concentrations decrease doesn’t necessarily mean more UV will reach the earth’s surface since any decrease in upper level ozone concentrates will result in an increase in lower level ozone concentrations. So the affect that you’re talking about probably has a lot more to do with the age, lifestyle or simply being more aware of the affect the sun has on your skin.

Quote:
Originally posted by magdalena:
Sorry - but there it is... now I am going to brave some flash flooding to get to the shops - don't know what is scarier - the flooding or the people at the shops today!!

Good luck with that, but I guess it’s safe to say the drought is over.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It hardly seems fair to be casting people left of centre as unthinking irrational extremist zealots.

Why? Because no one left of center could possible be “unthinking irrational extremist zealots”? There are just as many of those types on the Left as there are on the Right.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why? Because no one left of center could possible be “unthinking irrational extremist zealots”? There are just as many of those types on the Left as there are on the Right.

I didn't say they weren't, but left of centre invokes more mainstream, those people tend to be far left.

I wouldn't say "It seems that there is a crowd of people who adhere to the doomsday rapture and want to bring it about by nuking Iran, and generally tend to the right of centre" because it invokes a more mainstream image. Those people certainly exist, but they're on the extreme fringe of the right. Your use of language was betraying a meaning you didn't in fact mean, or you were expressing something that was wrong. What I'm saying is that saying their 'left of centre' is misleading if they are in fact extreme left.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why? Because no one left of center could possible be “unthinking irrational extremist zealots”? There are just as many of those types on the Left as there are on the Right.
I didn't say they weren't, but left of centre invokes more mainstream, those people tend to be far left.

Yeah, well I didn’t refer to anyone as “unthinking irrational extremist zealots” That’s a characterization you came up with.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah, well I didn’t refer to anyone as “unthinking irrational extremist zealots” That’s a characterization you came up with.

If you say so, but insinuating that some people see global warming as an occult religion, and won't listen to reason (and those people reside on the left, when theres as many if not more "anti-global warming because the GOP say so" over on the right) pretty much implies 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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah, well I didn’t refer to anyone as “unthinking irrational extremist zealots” That’s a characterization you came up with.
If you say so, but insinuating that some people see global warming as an occult religion, and won't listen to reason (and those people reside on the left, when theres as many if not more "anti-global warming because the GOP say so" over on the right) pretty much implies it.

Tell you what, you let me know when you’re ready to discuss what I’m saying instead of some ridiculous phrase you want to assign to me, then we’ll see where we are.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Tell you what, you let me know when you’re ready to discuss what I’m saying instead of some ridiculous phrase you want to assign to me, then we’ll see where we are.

No need to be irrational about it. If what you said wasn't supposed to imply they're religiously fanatical about global warming, in future you should better explain what you mean; because that's exactly how it reads. I was merely pointing out what your sentence said to me, and that it was wrong.

I'm trying to be reasonable Finn, I'm not saying that's definatly what you meant, I'm saying that's how it read. You want to throw a fit at me because your didn't explain yourself properly, go right ahead.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Tell you what, you let me know when you’re ready to discuss what I’m saying instead of some ridiculous phrase you want to assign to me, then we’ll see where we are.
No need to be irrational about it. If what you said wasn't supposed to imply they're religiously fanatical about global warming, in future you should better explain what you mean; because that's exactly how it reads. I was merely pointing out what your sentence said to me, and that it was wrong.

I'm trying to be reasonable Finn, I'm not saying that's definatly what you meant, I'm saying that's how it read. You want to throw a fit at me because your didn't explain yourself properly, go right ahead.

And now you’re upset because I won’t let you put words in my mouth. But let’s just cut to the chase. You don’t like that I criticized the views of a certain group of people with a Left-leaning position. I don’t really care. Let’s move on.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And now you’re upset because I won’t let you put words in my mouth. But let’s just cut to the chase.

And now you're upset because I wasn't putting words in your mouth, so you can't effectively deamonise me. I'll ask more openly, what were you saying then? When accusing me of putting words in your mouth while making no attempt to make clear what you really meant, the accusation falls quite flat.

Quote:
You don’t like that I criticized the views of a certain group of people with a Left-leaning position. I don’t really care. Let’s move on.

My only exception was that not everyone on the left, or who accepts global warming is a religious zealot. But I thought that wasn't what your were trying to say? In which case how could dislike what your were saying? Perhaps it was, or perhaps you're just putting words in my mouth? You obviously do care, you're the one making a big issue out of me asking for clarification.

EDITED for clarity

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And now you’re upset because I won’t let you put words in my mouth. But let’s just cut to the chase. You don’t like that I criticized the views of a certain group of people with a Left-leaning position. I don’t really care. Let’s move on.
And now you're upset because I wasn't putting words in your mouth, so you can't effectively deamonise me. I'll ask more openly, what were you saying then? When accusing me of putting words in your mouth while making no attempt to make clear what you really said, the accusation falls quite flat.

I knew that’s where this was all going. I’ve once again been accused of anti-citizenism.

I don’t have the patience for this today. I’ve got a whole meal to cook for Christmas dinner. If you want to believe that I’m trying to demonize you, I’m okay with that. In fact, I’m really starting to warm up to the idea of anti-citizenism. I think it should become world religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
My only exception was that not everyone on the left, or who accepts global warming is a religious zealot.

That’s a wonderful exception for you to have, but it’s not one you could have with what I wrote. Since I never said everyone on the left or everyone who accepts global warming is a religious realots. Once again, that’s something you came up with.

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew that’s where this was all going. I’ve once again been accused of anti-citizenism.

I don’t have the patience for this today. I’ve got a whole meal to cook for Christmas dinner. If you want to believe that I’m trying to demonize you, I’m okay with that.

Quote:
I'll ask more openly, what were you saying then?

A reasonable person would have just told me what you were trying to say. An unreasonable and irrational person, well, they'd have done something different.

I wasn't accusing you of being "anti-citizen", but feel free to put words in my mouth.

Quote:
That’s a wonderful exception for you to have, but it’s not one you could have with what I wrote. Since I never said everyone on the left or everyone who accepts global warming is a religious realots. Once again, that’s something you came up with.

Except I did, which is why I asked for clarification. It's not my fault if you want to throw a tantrum because you didn't make yourself clear.

Quote:
In fact, I’m really starting to warm up to the idea of anti-citizenism. I think it should become world religion.

That's a real nice way of proving you're the better man Finn. So sweet, I think everyone should hate you too

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:09 AM

RUE

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

There were an awful lot of physicists, economists, public health professors - one (possibly two) global climatologists.

I think I'll go ask organic synthetic chemistry professors what they think. After all they're scientists as well.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:43 AM