The Age Of Warming

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
There are those in this world that get all of their news and opinions from conservative talk show hosts. Why they choose to get their science from these radio personalities is beyond me. The VAST majority of scientific opinion (the percentage is so great that if it were the lottery, you'd play every day) indicates that this cycle of global warming is caused by man. I figure it is because the deny'ers have all of their investments in the energy sector.

And from what propaganda source are you getting your science then to make these broad, generalizing, black-and-white statements? Where did you get that word, "deny'er"(sic)? Certainly not from science. That word, along with heretic and infidel, is a religious word.

Scientific opinion is never in complete agreement. They might agree that this cycle of global warming is caused by man, but to what extent? They might agree that it is mostly caused by man, but not on the best solution for combatting it. Etc etc.

That's what makes your post so ironic. You're accusing some of being brainwashed by one source, when it is OBVIOUS that you yourself have been brainwashed by another, that you are just regurgitating what you've been fed, and making broad trollish accusations of "shill" to all the infidels. It is sad IMO that some people can be so stupid and ignorant as to be so lacking in independent thought of their own that they automatically assume that everyone else must be the same.

BTW, I'm sure this is way over your head, but global warming is good for the energy companies' profits. An artificial reduction of supply with no let-up in demand equals higher prices and fat profits. Econ 101 right there.

Sigh. How you aren't President Bush's scientific advisor is beyond me. Your spew has no basis in science whatsoever. You throw out half statements and try and convince yourself and others that these half-truths are evidence that the scientific community is full of morons.

While it is way over my head, renewable energy sources are the enemy of the energy companies, as you are a far superior person to me, I'm sure you knew that. Econ 201.

That I am not a climatologist nor have any training in climatology, I must take my evidence and knowledge from those that are experts. I just wish there was some talking head on the radio that could filter out all of those hard words and give me the air of superiority I so richly deserve. I finally understand what it must be like to have 5000 posts a year compared to 500. Seeing your words in print and therefore thinking that your ideas are THE ideas is a powerful feeling.

Can I have my elite tag now?

Oh noes! I'm a heretic! And I'm being attacking for my member title and post count!!

:roll:

My point is that you are not a scientific authority nor were you making actually scientific statements. At least you can admit that. What you seem unable to admit is that you were making political statements and accusations and calling them science. Called on that, all you do in this post is spout political accusations and ad hom me on my post count. On noes again!
And uh... where do you think the renewable energy companies are getting their investment capital, pal? More to the point, what renewable energy sources are actually feasible right now as we push towards limiting fossil fuels? So what makes you think the energy companies are really worried (beyond the usual conspiracy theorist nonsense)?
And where are your studies of complete scientific agreement as to the possible effects, causes, and solutions for global warming? I'm sure you could easily post a thousand studies showing that most scientists agree that that earth is warming, that they agree that SOME (and varying) level of human involvement is responsible, but beyond that you'd be hard-pressed to find any consensus at all. That what irks me in this P&N nutjob threads. You pretend the issue is black and white science when in fact science is very much divided on issues like the possible extent of the warming, how much human involvement is responsible, and what should be done to solve the problem. But you never address that, you just call everyone who brings up such questions and topics "deny'ers."

What is powerful (and simultaneously frightening) to me is seeing the way in which the sheep are so easily manipulated. When I say the right words, I can get an "Amen brother!" When I question the Faith, the attacks fly. And THAT is powerful. Were it my desire to control you rather than to attempt to instigate free thought, I could do so easily. That scares the hell out of me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who do you thik is going to develope and deploy many of these renewable energy sources?
I know BP has advertisements about their renewable resource programs, sure others do as well.

I'm a big microbrew fan, and for some reason, it always comes as a shock to many other fans that a very large number of the microbreweries are owned, in whole or in part, by the big macrobreweries.
Or that the big Vegas casinos provided a great deal of the investment capital into the tribal casinos (how else did you think a poor Indian tribe was able to put up a multi-million dollar facility?).

If AMD didn't exist, then Intel would create it. Same goes for Coke and Pepsi, MS and Apple, etc. It's not just about anti-monopoly laws either. Brand loyalty drives sales, and you can't have brand loyalty without competing brands.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who do you thik is going to develope and deploy many of these renewable energy sources?
I know BP has advertisements about their renewable resource programs, sure others do as well.

I'm not sure, but I'm able to say with confidence that the type of capitalism that the USA has developed over the last 100+ years does not help scientific advancements at all.

The advertisements you speak of are nothing but just that, advertisements. Not only that, but what they advertise are small side programs to figure out how to make money off of our complaints as well as our mindless consumerism. They don't give a shit about science, they're in it for the buck, and the buck stops nowhere. Well, it stops when the oil stops flowing, but those old farts will be dead long before that happens, so what do they care?

 

[trenchfoot]

basically then, if it costs money to do anything about it, then it's a bad thing and we shouldn't do anything about it until it's too late and then it won't matter anyway.

if it doesn't cost any money, then there is no problem, so we should all just ignore it and not do anything about it until it's too late and then it won't matter anyway.

so, all that crap we've been pumping into the environment over the last couple of hundred years has nothing to do with accellerating global warming. absolutely nothing at all. it doesn't matter if what we've contributed to it will be that last straw that broke the porverbial camel's back. let's just ignore the whole thing 'cause it eats into investor's profit margins and can't be proven beyond any greedy investor's need for more profit.

way to go.

go china go! go china go! pump as much of that fossil fuel byproducts into the environment as possible as it won't hurt the environment at all because the scientists that are paid by the profit makers/takers say so.

the main thing is to make as much money as we can before we kill ourselves.

now that makes perfect sense.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who do you thik is going to develope and deploy many of these renewable energy sources?
I know BP has advertisements about their renewable resource programs, sure others do as well.

I'm not sure, but I'm able to say with confidence that the type of capitalism that the USA has developed over the last 100+ years does not help scientific advancements at all.

The advertisements you speak of are nothing but just that, advertisements. Not only that, but what they advertise are small side programs to figure out how to make money off of our complaints as well as our mindless consumerism. They don't give a shit about science, they're in it for the buck, and the buck stops nowhere. Well, it stops when the oil stops flowing, but those old farts will be dead long before that happens, so what do they care?

I find that amusing considering ~100 years ago cars were just being introduced and flight was considered an unbelievable feat. Now we all drive cheap cars and fly at nearly the speed of sound around the world on a mass scale with our latest military jets able to cruise at mach 1+.

Then you can toss in this other thing we are using right now called the Internet which made the world and even smaller place. I am not sure where you got the idea these technologies were forged and moved forward by some dictatoship or govt beaurcracy, but I would love to have what you are smoking.

Thus when renewable resources become affordable to the market, I can bet which companies will be selling the technology. My bets are on some energy company.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
basically then, if it costs money to do anything about it, then it's a bad thing and we shouldn't do anything about it until it's too late and then it won't matter anyway.

if it doesn't cost any money, then there is no problem, so we should all just ignore it and not do anything about it until it's too late and then it won't matter anyway.

so, all that crap we've been pumping into the environment over the last couple of hundred years has nothing to do with accellerating global warming. absolutely nothing at all. it doesn't matter if what we've contributed to it will be that last straw that broke the porverbial camel's back. let's just ignore the whole thing 'cause it eats into investor's profit margins and can't be proven beyond any greedy investor's need for more profit.

way to go.

go china go! go china go! pump as much of that fossil fuel byproducts into the environment as possible as it won't hurt the environment at all because the scientists that are paid by the profit makers/takers say so.

the main thing is to make as much money as we can before we kill ourselves.

now that makes perfect sense.

:roll:

I think the issue is more of accusations flying from idealists who provide no solutions of their own.

I had an IRL conversation not long ago with this one young idealist who summed up his position with (paraphrasing) "war, hunger, violence, crime, poverty, starvation, the environment... all of these problems could be so easily solved... " and I cut him off right there.
Really? So easily solved except for what? You think the rest of us are just evil? You think the rest of us don't care? You think we don't even want to try? You think that we haven't already been trying? Oh yeah, "that makes perfect sense." As much perfect sense as Rodney King crying "Why can't we all just get along?"
Take your conspiracy theories and your utopist BS and shove it up your ass, eh?

 

[StageLeft]

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who do you thik is going to develope and deploy many of these renewable energy sources?
I know BP has advertisements about their renewable resource programs, sure others do as well.

I'm not sure, but I'm able to say with confidence that the type of capitalism that the USA has developed over the last 100+ years does not help scientific advancements at all.

The advertisements you speak of are nothing but just that, advertisements. Not only that, but what they advertise are small side programs to figure out how to make money off of our complaints as well as our mindless consumerism. They don't give a shit about science, they're in it for the buck, and the buck stops nowhere. Well, it stops when the oil stops flowing, but those old farts will be dead long before that happens, so what do they care?

I find that amusing considering ~100 years ago cars were just being introduced and flight was considered an unbelievable feat. Now we all drive cheap cars and fly at nearly the speed of sound around the world on a mass scale with our latest military jets able to cruise at mach 1+.

Then you can toss in this other thing we are using right now called the Internet which made the world and even smaller place. I am not sure where you got the idea these technologies were forged and moved forward by some dictatoship or govt beaurcracy, but I would love to have what you are smoking.

Thus when renewable resources become affordable to the market, I can bet which companies will be selling the technology. My bets are on some energy company.

That's cute, but there's no reason why good technologies and science should have to wait for it to become affordable for the poor wittle corporations.

The entire idea of renewable energy and dare I say (near)free energy is that it's cheaper, easier, and quicker to produce, and as a result, cheaper for the end consumer.

Why the fuck would a corporation that makes it's money off of inefficiency go into that field when there is years worth of oil left in the ground? They're simply doing these renewable energy side projects to appear progressive.

I have an idea, instead of our governments and their administrations squandering money to cause wars over the last century and such, perhaps it should go towards advancements that are good for humanity instead of damaging.

There has been a system erected that literally makes money off of wars, and it's not necessary. It's not moral. It's not American.

The advancements you speak of were brought about due to war, not for strictly scientific and humanitarian interests. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

I'm going off topic here.

One last thing, if you want to get into insults I'd gladly play ball. Your spelling is atrocious, your sentence structuring is obnoxious, and it sounds like you are in fact the one who is intoxicated, not me. I don't smoke, or even drink for that matter.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Skoorb

entirely moot

How? Because it doesn't fit the simple cause and effect of man = global warming so reduce man = reduction in warming?

You aren't that naive. Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution, not 10,000 years ago.

Which, coincidentally, happened about the same time that we broke out of a 400 year cold spell. (And no, I don't believe that the IR ended the Little Ice Age...)

And by they way... there have been extended periods of both warming and cooling since the IR.

Yay for the same old arguments!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

What? They're self funded? I don't think so. The money comes from somewhere. And the money is always agenda based regardless if it comes from Exxon or Uncle Sam. If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

^this^

It doesn't mean a god damn thing to me whether it's really happening or not. Not gonna affect me in my lifetime.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

You're confused. I could post a multitude of independent (or even government-funded) studies that cast doubt on these exact questions. But all I'd get in return for my efforts would cries of "shill" and "heretic" and other such completely unscientific BS.
And the odd thing there is considerable evidence showing large financial backing for the pro-GW argument, particularly from financial sectors pushing for carbon-offset trading, and from corporate energy interests looking for ways to one-up their competition.

It would greatly help this argument if you could stick with the facts and the efforts moving towards solutions (note the plural) than the typical black and white bleating. Anyone can do the latter. Hell, it's August 20th, 65F and raining here today... global warming MUST be fake! See how stupid that sounds?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

What? They're self funded? I don't think so. The money comes from somewhere. And the money is always agenda based regardless if it comes from Exxon or Uncle Sam. If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.

Didn't you know? Law firms disguised as pro-environmental lobbyist groups make their money from good deeds, not public opinion and fundraising.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

What? They're self funded? I don't think so. The money comes from somewhere. And the money is always agenda based regardless if it comes from Exxon or Uncle Sam. If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.

Alright then, which companies or bodies are giving money to independent scientists? Which evil people are trying to "skew" the facts to make global warming seem more real, and for what purpose? Is it the democrats trying to win popularity contests by making their opponents look bad, because there are just as many democrats with their hands in the oil business as there are republicans?

Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

This is a joke, right? Why do those "The Truth" commercials make blatant exagerations and the occasional outright lie even when everyone knows how harmful cigarettes are? What does that get them?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

You're confused. I could post a multitude of independent (or even government-funded) studies that cast doubt on these exact questions. But all I'd get in return for my efforts would cries of "shill" and "heretic" and other such completely unscientific BS.
And the odd thing there is considerable evidence showing large financial backing for the pro-GW argument, particularly from financial sectors pushing for carbon-offset trading, and from corporate energy interests looking for ways to one-up their competition.

It would greatly help this argument if you could stick with the facts and the efforts moving towards solutions (note the plural) than the typical black and white bleating. Anyone can do the latter. Hell, it's August 20th, 65F and raining here today... global warming MUST be fake! See how stupid that sounds?

I would never say something like that to you for posting FACTS. I never see them, though.

All I've seen as far as science goes so far is data providing very damning evidence that GW is quite real.

That's all I'm going on. I'd love to see these studies. I'm serious.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

This is a joke, right? Why do those "The Truth" commercials make blatant exagerations and the occasional outright lie even when everyone knows how harmful cigarettes are? What does that get them?

What...? Are you honestly arguing the danger of inhaling cigarette smoke?

Wait wait, never mind that. Where do they lie to make cigarettes seem more dangerous? I've honestly never heard of this. I've heard of the lies spewed about how bad marijuana is, but not cigarettes.

Also, what does that have to do with weather models?

 

[Genx87]

That's cute, but there's no reason why good technologies and science should have to wait for it to become affordable for the poor wittle corporations.

It isnt affordability for the corporations that is the issue, it is affordabilty for the consumer. Corps dont really care about the costs if they can pass them onto the consumer and the consumer pays. The problem is right now the consumer isnt ready nor willing to pay for higher renewable sources on a mass scale. That is what I meant by it becomming affordable. And when it does the energy companies will have their hand in the selling of said technology.

The entire idea of renewable energy and dare I say (near)free energy is that it's cheaper, easier, and quicker to produce, and as a result, cheaper for the end consumer.

Currently fossil fuels are still cheaper. I am sure someday that will change, but until it does, it isnt marketable on a mass scale.

Why the fuck would a corporation that makes it's money off of inefficiency go into that field when there is years worth of oil left in the ground? They're simply doing these renewable energy side projects to appear progressive.

Because some day oil will run out? Why wouldnt they invest in the technology now while profits are high and they can get a leg up on their competition? Why wait until it is too late and fold?

I have an idea, instead of our governments and their administrations squandering money to cause wars over the last century and such, perhaps it should go towards advancements that are good for humanity instead of damaging.

Our govt spends bilions a year on subsidies for alternative fuel and reneweable sources of energy. Do you think it is damaging for tracks of land to be eaten up by windmills that sit idle 30% of the time? I do, but I would assume you think not.

There has been a system erected that literally makes money off of wars, and it's not necessary. It's not moral. It's not American.

And just wtf does that have to do with this debate?

The advancements you speak of were brought about due to war, not for strictly scientific and humanitarian interests. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

You have to be a pretty big cynic to believe the automobile and airplane were products of wars. While certain aspects of their advancement might have been accelerated due to wars. Certainly when i fly in a comfortable 737 across the country. That wasnt built, researched, and designed under war pretenses.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

This is an uncommonly honest reaction, in my opinion. I think if you will be even more honest you will find a part of you is welcoming it.

What people fail to realize is the nature of self hate. We hate ourselves and hide from that fact. That means we act out against ourselves unconsciously, since we deny this reality and are yet impelled to experience it. The result, of course, is that we are unconsciously causing our own extinction. We pollute the earth our of self hate because we know it's not nice to fool Mother nature and we want Her to punish us. All our sins are an unconscious need for self destruction. It's why the thief leaves his wallet at the crime scene.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821
I would never say something like that to you for posting FACTS. I never see them, though.

All I've seen as far as science goes so far is data providing very damning evidence that GW is quite real.

That's all I'm going on. I'd love to see these studies. I'm serious.

And once again, how real? Will the oceans rise 1 foot or 20 feet? How much human involvement? How much good would be done if all of humanity stopped using fossil fuels and went back to (say) horses? Etc.

These are the ACTUAL arguments involved in the scientific community. Not the political-based accusations (so prevalent on the internet) of "naysayer" and "deny'er" to anyone who questions the very-worst-cased scenario. Get it?
I'll say it again, basing a premise off an if/then speculation is not logical or scientific. That's the debate here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

This is a joke, right? Why do those "The Truth" commercials make blatant exagerations and the occasional outright lie even when everyone knows how harmful cigarettes are? What does that get them?

What...? Are you honestly arguing the danger of inhaling cigarette smoke?

Wait wait, never mind that. Where do they lie to make cigarettes seem more dangerous? I've honestly never heard of this. I've heard of the lies spewed about how bad marijuana is, but not cigarettes.

Also, what does that have to do with weather models?

Fsck, my point exactly. And people wonder why I get frustrated and pissed off here. Learn to fscking read before you reply. And if you can't understand something amazingl simple like "cigarettes are dangerous, so why does a particular public relations group stretch the truth to make them sound even more dangerous than they are" when I clearly argued that IN CONTEXT, then don't reply at all, eh?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

This is an uncommonly honest reaction, in my opinion. I think if you will be even more honest you will find a part of you is welcoming it.

What people fail to realize is the nature of self hate. We hate ourselves and hide from that fact. That means we act out against ourselves unconsciously, since we deny this reality and are yet impelled to experience it. The result, of course, is that we are unconsciously causing our own extinction. We pollute the earth our of self hate because we know it's not nice to fool Mother nature and we want Her to punish us. All our sins are an unconscious need for self destruction. It's why the thief leaves his wallet at the crime scene.

So under what aspect of self-hate does desiring to curtail human progress at all costs under the guise of fear fall under, Moonie?

You and I pollute the earth everytime we take a sh!t, and there's no self-hate or sin involved in that. FYI to you: this is why I usually blow off your usual one-sided pseudo-religious BS. "Mother Nature" doesn't feel emotions, just universal physical laws that consistently strive towards balance. Which means there's 2 sides to every coin, now doesn't it?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Genx87

That's cute, but there's no reason why good technologies and science should have to wait for it to become affordable for the poor wittle corporations.

It isnt affordability for the corporations that is the issue, it is affordabilty for the consumer. Corps dont really care about the costs if they can pass them onto the consumer and the consumer pays. The problem is right now the consumer isnt ready nor willing to pay for higher renewable sources on a mass scale. That is what I meant by it becomming affordable. And when it does the energy companies will have their hand in the selling of said technology.

The entire idea of renewable energy and dare I say (near)free energy is that it's cheaper, easier, and quicker to produce, and as a result, cheaper for the end consumer.

Currently fossil fuels are still cheaper. I am sure someday that will change, but until it does, it isnt marketable on a mass scale.

Why the fuck would a corporation that makes it's money off of inefficiency go into that field when there is years worth of oil left in the ground? They're simply doing these renewable energy side projects to appear progressive.

Because some day oil will run out? Why wouldnt they invest in the technology now while profits are high and they can get a leg up on their competition? Why wait until it is too late and fold?

I have an idea, instead of our governments and their administrations squandering money to cause wars over the last century and such, perhaps it should go towards advancements that are good for humanity instead of damaging.

Our govt spends bilions a year on subsidies for alternative fuel and reneweable sources of energy. Do you think it is damaging for tracks of land to be eaten up by windmills that sit idle 30% of the time? I do, but I would assume you think not.

There has been a system erected that literally makes money off of wars, and it's not necessary. It's not moral. It's not American.

And just wtf does that have to do with this debate?

The advancements you speak of were brought about due to war, not for strictly scientific and humanitarian interests. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

You have to be a pretty big cynic to believe the automobile and airplane were products of wars. While certain aspects of their advancement might have been accelerated due to wars. Certainly when i fly in a comfortable 737 across the country. That wasnt built, researched, and designed under war pretenses.

I'm glad I've got you talking to me instead of at me, now.

I think you're missing what I was trying to say though. I have a hard time focusing on details, I tend to look at the bigger picture.

That bigger picture is that there is no reason to be waiting on technologies because there is still oil in the ground. The idea that technology has to be profitable is not a good one, it's selfish.

I understand I'm being almost entirely idealistic here, but it's not any less a valid point, no?

I am quite a cynic, you got me on that one.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

This is a joke, right? Why do those "The Truth" commercials make blatant exagerations and the occasional outright lie even when everyone knows how harmful cigarettes are? What does that get them?

What...? Are you honestly arguing the danger of inhaling cigarette smoke?

Wait wait, never mind that. Where do they lie to make cigarettes seem more dangerous? I've honestly never heard of this. I've heard of the lies spewed about how bad marijuana is, but not cigarettes.

Also, what does that have to do with weather models?

Fsck, my point exactly. And people wonder why I get frustrated and pissed off here. Learn to fscking read before you reply. And if you can't understand something amazingl simple like "cigarettes are dangerous, so why does a particular public relations group stretch the truth to make them sound even more dangerous than they are" when I clearly argued that IN CONTEXT, then don't reply at all, eh?

Uh..

I was teasing you, Vic...

You know, because people will say you're on the cigarette companies side if you even begin to point out lies, regardless of which side you're actually on.

I suppose I shouldn't be attempting jokes inside of heated arguments while I'm working, though. I can see now that my sarcasm wasn't lost, it was completely undetectable.