more exaggeration? You keep repeating this same theme... how desperate are you... wait, how MAD R U? You claimed I had half the board on ignore - to which I asked you if the board had 6 members total? Can ya do the math lil' fella?
The Intermittent Little Ice Age
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
more exaggeration? You keep repeating this same theme... how desperate are you... wait, how MAD R U? You claimed I had half the board on ignore - to which I asked you if the board had 6 members total? Can ya do the math lil' fella?
well there we have it! You must just be another right-wing schmuck that thinks edumacation be fer losers! Did a teacher make you sit in the corner once?
thank you for your moderation... your most unique brand of moderation!
not with you. You have proven yourself to be a zealot. A talking head. Nothing more. You are NOT worth "debating" with.
oh Locutus, you mad!
Locutus the Fisher!
Keep it up you are making cannuck look smarter ll the time.
I note you still won't commit... you still won't state your position on GW/AGW/CC. Yet, you sure have a lot to say otherwise, hey? Just a few posts back you again raised your ire over the denier labeling... and I went down the history path on that with you. I've just given you yet another opportunity to state your position and reaffirm why you object to the denier label I tagged you with; which, of course, was done in relation to some of your prior posts. You again refuse to state your position. What kind of, as you say, "head... are you talking with"? Speaking of your earlier declared "obvious":
.
.
.
hey Locutus... take your best shot! I have places to go... people to see! I have a life outside of CC... and you, "Locutus the Fisher"?
I won't "commit" because I am still skeptical of both sides. Dumba$$. Neither side has proven their case as far as I'm concerned and when it comes to the AGW proponents, too many of them are chicken littles that have been proven wrong over time. I know you, being the zealot that you are, can not understand how one can not be one one side of the line or the other, but that is one of things that makes you so laughable.
Thanks for stating my position also....
I'm all for cleaning up the environment, but not because of the scare tactics of the global warming crowd, but because the air I breathe is important to me, having noticed the difference in the air here and the air in Toronto when I go there and also the difference here after they put scrubbers on the steam plant chimneys in the mill years ago.
Go nuts on sulphur emission reductions as far as I'm concerned. It's an immediate, real threat.
I note you still won't commit... you still won't state your position on GW/AGW/CC. Yet, you sure have a lot to say otherwise, hey? Just a few posts back you again raised your ire over the denier labeling... and I went down the history path on that with you. I've just given you yet another opportunity to state your position and reaffirm why you object to the denier label I tagged you with; which, of course, was done in relation to some of your prior posts. You again refuse to state your position. What kind of, as you say, "head... are you talking with"? Speaking of your earlier declared "obvious":
.
.
.
hey Locutus... take your best shot! I have places to go... people to see! I have a life outside of CC... and you, "Locutus the Fisher"?
Oh look! waldo took a selfie.
See for me the "case" gets all bogged down in rhetoric, which isn't really proof of anything. I'm with DaS on this one though, I'm all for cleaning up. And I think keeping an eye towards sustainable energy sources is the way to go. Pardon me, reliable sustainable energy is what I should say.
was that so hard for you to write? How many times did you avoid the repeated requests for you to state your position... if you don't have one, you say so! Is that so difficult for you? Of course, based on some of what you've written I'd suggest you might want to reevaluate your now claimed "non-committal' position... it appears a tad skewed, and as you say, quite "laughable"!
your recall seems a bit fuzzy to me. Ya see, you actually did state you accepted warming (GW)... and you subsequently took extreme exception to me qualifying denial in terms of degrees of denial. That one can accept it's warming while still not accepting that the principal causal tie to that warming is anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuels. Of course that's a position... a legitimate position, but it's also a denier position... a denier of AGW position. It really begs the question why you had such a meltdown, why you so objected to the qualification of denial into degrees of denial... perhaps you could speak to that, hey?
it's also quite telling that you so liberally throw around the zealot label to someone who does accept the theory of AGW. It's also quite telling that you don't speak of the actual science... that, instead, your first step is to speak of AGW proponents as MANY "chicken little types proven wrong over time". It's clear to me your "skeptical of both sides" statement is little to nothing about the actual science... the underlying physical science basis... it's just you weasel wording! Or perhaps you'd like to express your MANY "chicken little types proven wrong over time" statement in terms of the actual underlying physical science basis, hey? What underlying physical science basis... proven wrong many times over time... are you actually speaking of? And yes, you are, as you say, so laughable... so very, very, laughable!
cleaning up what? Traditional toxic pollution... or that and the mitigation of CO2 emissions? If both, does your cleaning up of CO2 emissions include, for example, both power generation and vehicular sources? In either case, "gained efficiencies" aren't sufficient. At the generation level, CO2 scrubbing and sequestration technologies are still in testing/trial stages... minimal effective deployment exists principally given the reluctance of both government/industry to spend required monies necessary for more targeted research/deployments.
when you speak of sustainable does that also extend to active expansion of existing fossil-fuel sources... because unless you're speaking of (and accepting to) "sustainable development" of, for example, the tarsands, exporting tarsands output to the world is counter-productive to gains you might presume to accomplish with "sustainable alternative energy sources". Full blown, full bore, full speed ahead tarsands development/expansion, with all the contemplated pipelines shipping tarsands output to new world-wide markets, that simply reinforces the new markets dependency on traditional fossil-fuels and acts to stifle shifts in those markets own alternative energy pursuits. Which really begs the question, when you refer to "reliable" sustainable energy... just what do you mean by "reliable"?