Changing opinion on Global Warming

G

god1

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Deciphering...
"I hate science, why would I want to cite something scientific in a discussion about science?"
Click to expand...
Ahaha --- you are way stupid beyond help. Can't even decipher correctly. Your crypto ring must be busted.
Just admit you're a "fanboy" of stupid --- so do you turn to the east or west when you pray?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Yes, the author is politically biased! Glad you are starting to see the point.
Click to expand...
Idiot.

That has been my point all along. He is a politically biased talking head, not an expert. It is just an insult that you think it is worth debating because he comes from the democrat party. Glad YOU'RE starting to see the point.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
god1 said:
Ahaha --- you are way stupid beyond help. Can't even decipher correctly. Your crypto ring must be busted.
Just admit you're a "fanboy" of stupid --- so do you turn to the east or west when you pray?
Click to expand...
god1 said:
Why do you keep yelling for a peer reviewed citation? Continue with your religion. The machine needs people like you.
Click to expand...
Nope, I did it right, you're mad because I won't accept your sermon with out proper citation.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Idiot.

That has been my point all along. He is a politically biased talking head, not an expert. It is just an insult that you think it is worth debating because he comes from the democrat party. Glad YOU'RE starting to see the point.
Click to expand...
Then why are you here trying to have a debate? I'm not forcing you to post here.

If I am an idiot, what does it say about you arguing with me? ha ha ha.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Capitalism is not possible in the absence of gov't.
Click to expand...
Pretty much anything is not possible without some form of governing body [when referring to humans] -- lawlessness and anarchy are completely unsustainable. Then throw greed and leverage into the mix? Sheesh, I'm glad I own guns, because in that world, the best shot, wins.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Yes, the author is politically biased! Glad you are starting to see the point. A vegan enviro dem changed his opinion on AGW from that of believing everything to being skeptical of the worst case scenarios after doing 400 hours of research and posting to many many links of peer reviewed science that he relied on. Glad to finally get you straight on that after 6 pages. As such, your call for stuff that invalidates AGW is ridiculous because that position was never argued by anyone. Get it?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you are missing ACs point, which was a little like the point I made earlier [in another thread] regarding skunk marihuana killing brain cells. I think the problem AC [and I] have is that you (figuratively) perpetuate nonsense. The author of the Forbes article merely repeated what someone else said that some else concluded. In other words, hearsay. Forbes then, unsurprisingly, made a captive headline inferring the content of the headlined article was based solely in fact and was all but conclusive. But then when you peel back the layers we quickly find that not to be the case. -- I think AC is making that point here, with you. He is simply saying, "why perpetuate bullshit?" -- In short, the line of questioning should be as follows: Do you believe what the author of the op-ed article said? If so, can you provide evidence to the fact? If not, what's your point?

Does that make sense?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Pretty much anything is not possible without some form of governing body [when referring to humans] -- lawlessness and anarchy are completely unsustainable. Then throw greed and leverage into the mix? Sheesh, I'm glad I own guns, because in that world, the best shot, wins.
Click to expand...
Sounds like status quo more than anarchy.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Sounds like status quo more than anarchy.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a high level of governing, albeit very broken in many parts of the world. But it still exists. Without it, the best shot, wins. And the last time I checked, I could reach out and plink a 10 inch diameter plate from 600 yards out. #justsayin
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Actually, I think you are missing ACs point, which was a little like the point I made earlier [in another thread] regarding skunk marihuana killing brain cells. I think the problem AC [and I] have is that you (figuratively) perpetuate nonsense. The author of the Forbes article merely repeated what someone else said that some else concluded. In other words, hearsay. Forbes then, unsurprisingly, made a captive headline inferring the content of the headlined article was based solely in fact and was all but conclusive. But then when you peel back the layers we quickly find that not to be the case. -- I think AC is making that point here, with you. He is simply saying, "why perpetuate bullshit?" -- In short, the line of questioning should be as follows: Do you believe what the author of the op-ed article said? If so, can you provide evidence to the fact? If not, what's your point?

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
The perpetuation of nonsense is 90% of what I see here in the Politics section.

AC complaining that a post is politically biased in the Politics section? Uh, what am I missing here? I shouldn't be allowed to post a political opinion piece on AGW in the Politics section? I would say tough cookies, but don't want to come off as rude.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
So no, @see4, he doesn't get it.
Click to expand...
Nice of you to translate but I'm sure he gets it.

How about I reboot the thread?

This thread links to a political commentary in post 1 written by a self professed environmental activist democrat vegan writer. He changes his opinion on AGW from one of believing the upper range of the models (alarmist) to one more in line with the bottom range of the models (skeptic/denier?). Please do not read it if you are not into political commentary as it could be a micro-aggression against some of you thin skinned RIU Politicial posters, you sensitive little daisies, you. Also, if you mind is easily blown by razzmatazz and pictures of kittens, this may not be for you. :bigjoint::bigjoint:
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
There is definitely a high level of governing, albeit very broken in many parts of the world. But it still exists. Without it, the best shot, wins. And the last time I checked, I could reach out and plink a 10 inch diameter plate from 600 yards out. #justsayin
Click to expand...
Square shootin', Tex!

That's a world I've seen closely enough to never, ever want to inhabit or encourage.
 
bravedave

bravedave

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
LOL breitbart. You used breitbart as a point of factual reference. Now THAT is some funny shit right there.

I know exactly where you stand on the "intelligent discussion" scale.
Click to expand...
He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
bravedave said:
He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.
Click to expand...
hey bravedave, how is the leaf grow going?

lots of leaves again, like usual?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
bravedave said:
He generally writes for the Telegraph and has been writing on this topic for a long time. Don't read it. Matter of fact, I suggest you only read things you agree with...that also is indicative of an intelligence level.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between the bullshit you do - "only read the things you agree with" - and actually reading what's objective and verifiably true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top