EPTand by theory i mean global warming scientific certainties - i don't mean that there's a 50/50 chance of it being true, i mean the fact there is global warming is true, but how well we understand it (eg. via computer models) is theoretical. which is what Crichton talks about - not really knowing the solution. the solutions that are proposed by these "Greenies" such as the Kyoto Protocol are ineffective and many fail to take into account how in order to protect the environment conservation and economics need to be addressed hand in hand rather than completely ignoring one for the sake of the other
STFU you global warming psychos - Page 2
| Blogs > RebelHeart |
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
and by theory i mean global warming scientific certainties - i don't mean that there's a 50/50 chance of it being true, i mean the fact there is global warming is true, but how well we understand it (eg. via computer models) is theoretical. which is what Crichton talks about - not really knowing the solution. the solutions that are proposed by these "Greenies" such as the Kyoto Protocol are ineffective and many fail to take into account how in order to protect the environment conservation and economics need to be addressed hand in hand rather than completely ignoring one for the sake of the other | ||
|
crazyjew
Canada44 Posts
also, energy cartels? anti global warming propaganda? what kidn of fucking drugs have you been smoking? have you watched any TV or read any newspapers in the last 15 years? i have and i have NEVER ONCE seen anything run which is against global warming, but i see something which supports it on a DAILY BASIS. the only people i ever see who are opposing global warming are scientists, and those ones are rarely heard from in the public, but every idiot who watches at least an hour of TV a week is now a fucking expert on global warming and will tell you without a doubt that it exists and explain why. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On July 10 2007 13:18 crazyjew wrote: why is that global warming supporters assume that only information which contradicts them is biased? why cant anyone who supports global warming be biased? also, energy cartels? anti global warming propaganda? what kidn of fucking drugs have you been smoking? have you watched any TV or read any newspapers in the last 15 years? i have and i have NEVER ONCE seen anything run which is against global warming, but i see something which supports it on a DAILY BASIS. the only people i ever see who are opposing global warming are scientists, and those ones are rarely heard from in the public, but every idiot who watches at least an hour of TV a week is now a fucking expert on global warming and will tell you without a doubt that it exists and explain why. great reply mate i'm actually finding it hilarious that people started debating global warming (although what do you expect when there exist global warming psychos) instead of commenting on the extract i chose to paste from Crichton's book  | ||
|
crazyjew
Canada44 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On July 10 2007 13:18 crazyjew wrote: why is that global warming supporters assume that only information which contradicts them is biased? why cant anyone who supports global warming be biased? also, energy cartels? anti global warming propaganda? what kidn of fucking drugs have you been smoking? have you watched any TV or read any newspapers in the last 15 years? i have and i have NEVER ONCE seen anything run which is against global warming, but i see something which supports it on a DAILY BASIS. the only people i ever see who are opposing global warming are scientists, and those ones are rarely heard from in the public, but every idiot who watches at least an hour of TV a week is now a fucking expert on global warming and will tell you without a doubt that it exists and explain why. You're just stupid. | ||
|
crazyjew
Canada44 Posts
I'M stupid? please explain. you must be one of those global warming experts i was talking about, maybe you can educate me? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
crazyjew
Canada44 Posts
| ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On July 06 2007 03:55 RebelHeart wrote: despite the irrelevant extract i chose to quote, for those who have read the book, did you feel like he stated the case against global warming intellectually and objectively? I read you blog. I left my opinion to give your blog the feedback it invited. I did my best to offer you my answer and opinion specifically keeping a focus on the only question you offered. I did my best to remain polite about it despite your rude and insulting comments*. *+ Show Spoiler + Left wing greenies from an "objective" point of view. you just did by immediately disregarding anything Right-wing ignorant global warming doomsayers idiot Greenpeace members idiot global warming psycho dumbass fool Let me understand what you are saying: - People that believe in global warming will be cataclysmic are "ignorant". - Greenpeace members are "idiots". - If you stand on the left political wing spectrum AND are an environmentalist you can not be "objective" about global warming. - Not agreeing with Bush environmental policies makes you disregards all things "right wing" - Klaz is a "dumbass" and a "fool". Tadzio00 is an "idiot global warming psycho" and a "socialist greenie" - I am a "global warming psycho" and last but not least your main suggestion is for - "those sort of Lefties to STFU" What can I tell you, best advice I can give you is too look in the mirror "mate". Don't insult others for their opinions but rather spend the time reading more about the issue and do it from scientific sources themselves rather than a fictional novelist. Argue the opinions rather than insult people or spend your time labeling people with naive adjectives and generalizations such as "global warming pyschos", "greenie" and "lefties", then bundling all your generalizations together, and asking them to "shut up." and you follow it all up by this.. On July 10 2007 17:41 RebelHeart wrote: great reply mate i'm actually finding it hilarious that people started debating global warming (although what do you expect when there exist global warming psychos)instead of commenting on the extract i chose to paste from Crichton's book : P And you find it hilarious that people started debating about global warming? Instead of commenting the extract you chose? Maybe you should have made the quote "relevant" or maybe you should not have asked your question, the very reason of your blog, "did you feel like he stated the case against global warming intellectually and objectively?" - maybe you should have asked what we thought of his literary and prose style. You wanted a discussion on your question and our opinions of the book? Or simply a chance to insult, label and laugh at people that do not agree with you? If this is so, remind me not to bother again with your blogs, insults and questions. | ||
|
crazyjew
Canada44 Posts
On July 12 2007 00:41 Physician wrote: I read you blog. I left my opinion to give your blog the feedback it invited. I did my best to offer you my answer and opinion specifically keeping a focus on the only question you offered. I did my best to remain polite about it despite your rude and insulting comments*. *+ Show Spoiler + Left wing greenies from an "objective" point of view. you just did by immediately disregarding anything Right-wing ignorant global warming doomsayers idiot Greenpeace members idiot global warming psycho dumbass fool Let me understand what you are saying: - People that believe in global warming will be cataclysmic are "ignorant". - Greenpeace members are "idiots". - If you stand on the left political wing spectrum AND are an environmentalist you can not be "objective" about global warming. - Not agreeing with Bush environmental policies makes you disregards all things "right wing" - Klaz is a "dumbass" and a "fool". Tadzio00 is an "idiot global warming psycho" and a "socialist greenie" - I am a "global warming psycho" and last but not least your main suggestion is for - "those sort of Lefties to STFU" What can I tell you, best advice I can give you is too look in the mirror "mate". Don't insult others for their opinions but rather spend the time reading more about it and from scientific sources themselves rather than fictional novelists. Argue the opinions rather than insult people or spend your time labeling people with naive adjectives and generalizations such as "global warming pschos", "greenie" and "lefties", then bundling all your generalizations together, and asking them to "shut up." and you follow it all up by this.. And you find it hilarious that people started debating about global warming? Instead of commenting the extract you chose? Maybe you should have made the quote "relevant" or maybe you should not have asked your question, the very reason of your blog, "did you feel like he stated the case against global warming intellectually and objectively?" - maybe you should have asked what we thought of his literary and prose style. You wanted a discussion on your question and our opinions of the book? Or simply a chance to insult, label and laugh at people that do not agree with you? If this is so, remind me not to bother again with your blogs, insults and questions. HARSH | ||
| ||
