climategateFollow

....that we make stuff out of plastic, like packaging for eg. and then throw it in landfills after using it once.

As though theres an infinite supply of it.

Apparently its notgoing to be a problemfor much longer as the 'government' are going to ask 'Big Business' to stop shitting on the environment and all will be well.

Hmm...

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 11:58am by RedPhoenixxx

Since my computer is a bit jittery, here's a joke my jewish friend told me at poker last night:

Two old friends, a priest and a rabbi are meeting up after a long while without having seen each other. The rabbi tells the priest he's looking great, and the priest replies that lately he's been eating in some of the world's best restaurants. The Rabbi asks him how he manages to do that on his meagre salary, so the priest tells him:

- It's easy, I go in the restaurant early, order lots of food, caviar, lobster, salmon, Kobe beef, champagne, I eat and drink until the waiter finishes his shift. When the second waiter arrives and hands me the bill, I tell him I already paid the first waiter! And because I'm a priest, he trusts me, and I don't pay anything.

The rabbi is well-impressed, and both agree to try it together the next day. Next day arrives, they go to the most expensive restaurant in town. They order the most expensive food on the menu, the finest wine and the best Champagne, they feast for a couple of hours until the waiter finishes his shift. The second waiter arrives, and hands them their bill.

- This must be a mistake, says the priest. We already paid the first waiter!
- Indeed, says the rabbi. And we're still waiting for our change!


Edited, Dec 16th 2009 12:06pm by RedPhoenixxx

We need another religion thread for him to get his hate on. It's been a while.

the hilarity here is almost painful.

So Gbaji, are you claiming that there isn't a huge amount of money pouring into the system that is interested in not having ACC policies enacted? You don't think there is political capital to be gained by denying ACC?

You're confusing Jophiel and yourself. It's you who understand every field better then the experts.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 8:49pm by Xsarus

You're are least consistent, Gbaji. What I get from re-reading that thread is that I'm still arguing the exact same point, and you're still looking every single place except at the facts to try to make yours. It's like you think if you can just toss enough garbage around, no one will notice that you haven't actually proven your position or even seriously supported it.

Just to be clear: nothing in science can be proven. If one were to make a mistake and argue against a particular scientific theory based on some pillar of that theory is not proven one would have to admit this as a mistake to continue arguing from a rational position.

gbaji on the other hand argues - and continues to do so - awaiting "proof" from us. He simultaneously claims to understand that this is not achievable via science.

It is for this reason I choose to no longer reply to him on this matter.

If anyone else has any questions about the actual science I will be glad to help.

Sincerely,
yoyo

Hahahah... no. It's hilarious that last night you just had "no idea" that this whole exchange ever took place and now you know exactly how it went down but... hahaha... no.

I already posted a document which was basically the one you linked to as evidence. Yours just used a URL which was no longer valid due to them changing the format. The document number is even identical (264777). So I'll admit I actually was wrong a moment ago... I thought I had a similar document when, in reality, I found the exact same document you tried to pawn off as evidence and then started furiously backpedaling from. Your "collection of information" was an Inhofe press release.

You posted: ht tp://www.senate.gov/comm/environment_and_public_works/general/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
I just posted: ht tp://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Inhofe cites his own reports as evidence in the document you provided. I responded to his cited report. I also responded to multiple other points made in your document.

But keep embarrassing yourself!

Edited 'cause I realized I was wrong. So very, very wrong. I'm sorry.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 9:13pm by Jophiel

No. I'm awaiting sufficient evidence, support, or whatever term you want to use it, that the likelihood of man made changes to climate will cause sufficient long term harm to justify the political changes being proposed.


My statement about "proof" was to show how ridiculous Smash was being when he stated that the science was irrefutable (or whatever specific term he used, I can't be ***** to go back and look it up). I've stated this several times now, so how about you stop pretending that I said something other than what I did...?



Sigh. Since you haven't answered any questions about the "actual science" at all, I'm not sure why you offer this. Aside from just insisting over and over that "people say it's true!", you don't actually bring anything to the table here.

Of course, neither does anyone else arguing your side.

No. They aren't. The document number you linked was 257697

Go freaking read it Joph. Why on earth would I describe a link as going to a page with a "collection of information about various groups of scientists and their articles and papers, all very recent, who have countered the "consensus" of the global warming alarmists." if it went to the press release you linked? Does that look even vaguely similar? No. It doesn't.



As to the rest? It does not counter what I'm saying Joph. You keep shooting every bit of silliness you can lay your hands on. It's like you're grasping at straws. "Oh! But wait! This guy said the NAS said X, and they really said Y, so that means he's wrong about global warming, so that means that every other person is also wrong! Yay! I'm saved!!!".

You're kidding right? Is this what constitutes a good argument in your universe? You aren't supporting any position. You're only finding tiny little flaws in irrelevant aspects of some statements made by some members of the opposition. And it's not like the statements from a Senator rank high on the list here Joph.

Want me to list all the factual errors in every press release Gore has made over the years about Global warming? Have I *ever* stated that because Gore maybe said "arctic" instead of "antarctic", or 5 years instead of 50 that this was sufficient evidence to debunk his entire position? No. I have not. Because I look at the facts of the situation at hand, while you look for irrelevant mistakes made by people you don't agree with.


One of those methods allows us to derive the truth of something. The other method, while perhaps useful in a debate setting, isn't much good for anything else...

Joph doesn't bring anything to the table. Jeez, Joph, stop sucking so much.

Are you functionally retarded?