Originally Posted by gamma21

You kind of mean like a lot of the shit Al Gore says? Al Gore is not much different than OP when it comes to making bs claims because of single events. Also, weren't there quite a few libs claiming Katrina and other hurricanes were likely a result of MMGW?

Um, what? Please show a "single event" that Al Gore uses as justification for making a BS claim about global warming.

 

Originally Posted by gamma21

Didn't we have a mild hurricane season last year? There goes that theory if MMGW does in fact exist.

Isn't that just as dumb as saying that "this year the snow came early"?

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

no dems have said when it is hot that that's proof of GW? I'll let you rent my google if you need it. actually now that I reread your post I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is this becoming a thread about how stupid Dem vs. Rep statements are? I mean, I'm willing, just let me know

does tho.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Is this becoming a thread about how stupid Dem vs. Rep statements are? I mean, I'm willing, just let me know

No one in this thread has any actual knowledge on this issue everyone is just picking who they listen to, so both sides are stupid. Anyone claiming to actually know something better come out with some credentials or they are just more of the same old bs that both sides spew. Working for Greenpeace is not a credential in case you were wondering.

 

Originally Posted by leoslayer

Ok this might be hard for you to understand since you live in portland and I am sure it is cold as hell there, but it hardly ever snows here and if it dose it is not till second half of jan or feb. Most of the time if it dose snow it dose not stick. That is why this is so unusual. A few days ago it was 74 which is pretty normal here first part of dec

We all know you are having unusual weather. I understand, I understand. It's that part about using an infinitely small sample size to warrant your conclusion that is laughable. Only the truest of dinosaurs are denying that the earth is warming.

 

Originally Posted by yomamanodros

Working for Greenpeace is not a credential in case you were wondering.

Never said it did. Used it to say that even at my most fervent environmental stage, I still argued that using this "it's cold/hot outside" argument as hogwash. Nice to see you can get the obvious.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

I still argued that using this "it's cold/hot outside" argument as hogwash. Nice to see you can get the obvious.

exactly

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Never said it did. Used it to say that even at my most fervent environmental stage, I still argued that using this "it's cold/hot outside" argument as hogwash. Nice to see you can get the obvious.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

exactly

Then why is it that the Rep/conservatives are the ones using this argument? BOOM

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Then why is it that the Rep/conservatives are the ones using this argument? BOOM

world'sbiggestfacepalm.jpg

you are wrong. well, half-right is more like it. which was my entire point.

here, let's try this, pik the correct answer:

When a con/repub looks out the window and it's cold and says "Where's the damn global warming, Al?" (And means it), he is:

A. as stupid as a lib who looks outside and says "Damn it's hot, guess those idiots won't deny global warming anymaor!" (and means it)

I was going to put
B. A
but I thought the point was made lol

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Never said it did. Used it to say that even at my most fervent environmental stage, I still argued that using this "it's cold/hot outside" argument as hogwash. Nice to see you can get the obvious.

What is obvious is that you have just as much to back up your beliefs as a denier of mmgw. Obviously the OP's argument is completely bs, that was part of the reason I made my first post about everyone in this thread being full of it. I intended for my original statement to be aimed at both sides, you just automatically assumed I was arguing only against your side and you have done nothing to show why your opinions and beliefs are any more valid than any of the other people in this thread. I aimed the Greenpeace statement at you because you are the one who responded to my original statement with bs stats pulled completely out of your ass which just helped confirm what I was trying to say in the first place.

Maybe I should be thanking you.

 

Originally Posted by Artiecat

I will never understand all the hugababoo over GW? It seems to be the lesser of two evils to me.

Actually, George Walker was a pretty big evil. Not sure why you call him "it" though, I mean I still think he is human, not some kind of demon spawn. Sheeze.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Pretty sure you mean GW vs. any kind of government intervention/taxes

No. I meant that it sure beats global cooling.

 

Originally Posted by yomamanodros

What is obvious is that you have just as much to back up your beliefs as a denier of mmgw. Obviously the OP's argument is completely bs, that was part of the reason I made my first post about everyone in this thread being full of it. I intended for my original statement to be aimed at both sides, you just automatically assumed I was arguing only against your side and you have done nothing to show why your opinions and beliefs are any more valid than any of the other people in this thread. I aimed the Greenpeace statement at you because you are the one who responded to my original statement with bs stats pulled completely out of your ass which just helped confirm what I was trying to say in the first place.

Maybe I should be thanking you.

First, there have been many more technical debates in this thread on GW, and I have participated to a great extent, while you have been absent I assume or maybe you made trolling comments as you are doing here.

Second, you mentioned Greenpeace as though I had used it as a qualification. I did not, but that didn't stop you from misportraying what I did say. It doesn't bode well for your logical comprehension.

Third, I pulled no stats out of anyone's ass. I was acknowledging that there is still some uncertainty in the science, though there is not that much room for doubt. I put some %s on it to give it some tangibility. These are not statistics in any way. The fact that you are denying that there is any more certainty to the beleivers' science than the non-believers' science makes me think that either you have not done much listening/researching or you have an agenda. Either way, you have contributed less than nothing to this thread. I don't know wtf you are, but if I was to judge you based on this thread, I'd say the world would be a better place without you. You're a common troll. That's it, I'm hungry and getting some food. Please don't be here when I get back.

 

Originally Posted by Artiecat

I will never understand all the hugababoo over GW? It seems to be the lesser of two evils to me.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Pretty sure you mean GW vs. any kind of government intervention/taxes

 

Originally Posted by Artiecat

No. I meant that it sure beats global cooling.

I know, I was keeeeding.

But seriously, changes in the world's climate are accompanied by famine, economic collapse and wars. No biggie though. Hope you're comfortable.

can't we all just agree the OP is silly and move on.