I just heard the stupid comment of the week.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:48
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 5 of 11

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

PDCHARLES

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
MOURNING!!!

...dying each day

was this your intention, u clever wordsmith?

no-so-morbidisall

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 8:28 PM

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:15 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pdcharles:

...dying each day

was this your intention, u clever wordsmith?

I cannot tell a lie.

Chrisisall

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:31 PM

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?

EMMARIGBY

Monday, July 24, 2006 9:41 PM

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!

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 10:15 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:08 PM

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.

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. "

CITIZEN

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:17 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.

RUE

Monday, July 24, 2006 11:27 PM

Unwrapped,

I don't know where you're getting your information on Greenland. Wherever it is, go somewhere else b/c you are wrong.

Greenland has always been a way station for circumpolar peoples. At times one group or another would set up seasonal locations they would return to year to year. And sometimes a few people would winter-over. But before Eric the Red, it was never an independent continuously settled area.

Eric the Red tried to start a permanent settlement there. The name he gave it - "Greenland" - was probably the biggest example of false real-estate advertizing ever. There was a thin strip of vegetation between the glaciers and the ocean in protected bays. But that was it. Greenland was not green. (Iceland OTOH is not ice, it is actually MUCH greener than 'Greenland'.)

The settlement was never really sustainable and independent. It depended on trade with the Norse countries, trading fur for food, wood and iron. However, as the colony petered out (after using up the available grass, shrubs and soil) and became focused almost completely on survival, it was no longer a viable trading destination and was left out of the itineraries. After slowly grinding down over time, the coup de grace was a series of exceptionally hard winters. The hundred or so people who were left by then disappeared without anyone noticing.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE