Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

[macdoc]

lingua incognito ala Faux

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist,

This post includes a direct, personal attack on another member. Please try not to reduce your arguments to insults.

Forum rules.

What he said, however, was true.

The point is, however, that it is much better to say "the views expressed in post X are completely idiotic"

didn't he call us idiots in the post I was responding to?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

rEvolutionist,

This post includes a direct, personal attack on another member. Please try not to reduce your arguments to insults.

Forum rules.

What he said, however, was true.

The point is, however, that it is much better to say "the views expressed in post X are completely idiotic"

didn't he call us idiots in the post I was responding to?

Well, tap-dancing around the rules is fine, just so long as there's no labia involved.

[Seth]

rEvolutionist,

This post includes a direct, personal attack on another member. Please try not to reduce your arguments to insults.

Forum rules.

What he said, however, was true.

The point is, however, that it is much better to say "the views expressed in post X are completely idiotic"

didn't he call us idiots in the post I was responding to?

No, I was referring generally to the idiots who think that destroying economies for the sake of global one-world government is going to do anything about the effects of inevitable global warming. It was an abstract statement not directed at YOU. Yours was an explicit derogation directed at me.

I will say that the implied "they are" that should have proceeded the word "idiots" (which by the way is plural, which should have been your first clue) was not made explicit and probably should have been because I used the word "you" (also intended in the abstract group-directed sense) in the paragraph above. I apologize for being unclear about who the target of the word "idiots" was directed. I forgot that it's necessary to speak very carefully when trying to communicate with reactionary juveniles who have deficient anger-management capabilities and an inability to properly parse sentences for meaning.

[JimC]

rEvolutionist,

This post includes a direct, personal attack on another member. Please try not to reduce your arguments to insults.

Forum rules.

What he said, however, was true.

The point is, however, that it is much better to say "the views expressed in post X are completely idiotic"

didn't he call us idiots in the post I was responding to?

I think he was referring to the vast community of rational scientists who understand that global warming is a fact, and that increased CO2 released by humans is at least a major factor in the increase.

An insult in that sense becomes so diluted it's almost homeopathic...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tap-dancing.

[Jason]

[orpheus]

[FBM]

It's kinda like that recent Dawkins clip where somebody asks him a question and he goes on about how science works. Then at the end he pauses and says "Bitches." He wasn't referring to the person asking the question, but to everyone who doubts that science is better than religion as a source of knowledge.

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist,

This post includes a direct, personal attack on another member. Please try not to reduce your arguments to insults.

Forum rules.

What he said, however, was true.

The point is, however, that it is much better to say "the views expressed in post X are completely idiotic"

didn't he call us idiots in the post I was responding to?

No, I was referring generally to the idiots who think that destroying economies for the sake of global one-world government is going to do anything about the effects of inevitable global warming. It was an abstract statement not directed at YOU. Yours was an explicit derogation directed at me.

I will say that the implied "they are" that should have proceeded the word "idiots" (which by the way is plural, which should have been your first clue) was not made explicit and probably should have been because I used the word "you" (also intended in the abstract group-directed sense) in the paragraph above. I apologize for being unclear about who the target of the word "idiots" was directed. I forgot that it's necessary to speak very carefully when trying to communicate with reactionary juveniles who have deficient anger-management capabilities and an inability to properly parse sentences for meaning.

Thank you for clearing that up. My rectionary-juvenile organ sometimes works too well.

[macdoc]

No, I was referring generally to the idiots who think that destroying economies for the sake of global one-world government is going to do anything about the effects of inevitable global warming.

cant' resist getting in the brain dead sound bites tho...

so now it's "inevitable " is it??? instead of not happening?

Little shift of ground there.

Had to laugh at Alberta today....got the wake up call...

hehe bout time a anti AGW gov got kicked in the balls.....

The egg dripping off Harper's face looks good on him..... ( he has totally trashed Canada's role in environment earning several Dino of the Day at climate conferences )

Quote:

ENVIRONMENT
Alberta’s bold plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions stuns Ottawa and oil industry .
SHAWN MCCARTHY AND NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
OTTAWA and CALGARY — The Globe and Mail

The Alberta government has quietly presented a proposal to sharply increase levies on carbon production and force large oil-industry producers to slash greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 40 per cent on each barrel of production, a long-term plan that has surprised Ottawa and industry executives with its ambition.

more

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e10762621/

snip

“A larger part of the discussion around Keystone has been about greenhouse gas emissions” from the oil sands, said Clare Demerse, director of federal policy with the Pembina Institute. “This is clearly a sector that is under scrutiny right now, and the right answer to that scrutiny is to come out with credible regulations.”

kicking and screaming into reality....
bout bloody time...a large pie in the face to Prime Minister Harper's odious environmental record....

what IS inevitable is a lower carbon civilization.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I forgot that it's necessary to speak very carefully when trying to communicate with reactionary juveniles who have deficient anger-management capabilities and an inability to properly parse sentences for meaning.

This isn't an insult, I take it.

[macdoc]

Yay team.....closing coal plants and opening new nukes

US starts building first nuclear reactors in 30 years

* 03 April 2013 by Michael Reilly

After a three-decade hiatus, work is finally under way on a new wave of reactors thanks to government funding – but China is already way ahead

Editorial: "It's too early to herald a US nuclear renaissance"

YOU could be forgiven for thinking a new era of nuclear energy is under way in the US. On 11 March, crews at the Virgil C Summer power plant in South Carolina completed a 51-hour marathon of pouring concrete. Three days later, in Burke County, Georgia, another concrete base was completed.

The two reactors that will sit on these bases will be Westinghouse AP1000s. Like older models, they will use uranium fission to heat water and drive a turbine, but these reactors will be smaller, simpler to build, and each will add more than [HILITE]1100 megawatts of capacity to the region's power grid when they come online in 2016 or 2017 – without emitting carbon dioxide.[/HILITE]

They will be the first new reactors on US soil in over three decades. Besides the two reactors in progress, two more are planned – one at each plant. And work has resumed on a half-built reactor, Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. It could be connected to the grid by 2015.

more

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... years.html

[Tyrannical]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

[Animavore]

The problem is that climate scientists are never the best, brightest, and most rational of the bunch. Instead they tend to be the worst, dullest, and most irrational of scientists and are fundamentally unqualified to study or make predictions regarding something as dynamic and complicated as the Earth's climate really is.

What we really need to do is disregard all the climate charlatans and have real experts in both math and physics attack the problem. Except the real scientists are too busy looking for god particles or theorizing how the universe was created.

You're joking, right?