abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 A good read http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_nazi_origins_of_apocalypti.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 American Thinker - we've done all the thinking, so you don't need to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 That is pretty much the attitude of the OTHER side of this debate...Al Gore" the debate is over" etc... can all be interpreted as "We are right you are wrong, don't try to think how stupid our story is, just agree because we are smarter than you" What was Al Gore's, that great global warming scientist, most famous line of the past year..something about how snow will be less and less,causing the western USA to run out of water... Where was he when we needed 18inches(a record) shoveled a week ago. And just so you can't say no..climate change also causes cooling...the record it broke was long before there was the issue of climate change, fuel burning, overpopulation (all of which are indeed issues to look at) in 1893. And by the way, the factual parts of this piece are quite accurate, and verifiable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And by the way, the factual parts of this piece are quite accurate, and verifiable. orly? You know this ... how?* That aside, they're also irrelevant. The whole article is a classic red herring. I mean, you Godwined yourself in the very first post. * Edit: 'quite' accurate? What does that even mean? Is that like 'nearly' being a virgin, or 'almost' being an ex-alcoholic? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 "Their hatred toward global capitalism became even more vitriolic precisely because the capitalists were now in charge of a dangerous nuclear arsenal that threatened the entire planet. " Wot no Soviet nukes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 orly? You know this ... how?* That aside, they're also irrelevant. The whole article is a classic red herring. I mean, you Godwined yourself in the very first post. * Edit: 'quite' accurate? What does that even mean? Is that like 'nearly' being a virgin, or 'almost' being an ex-alcoholic? What does "orly" mean in your post? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 time you got hip, dude. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 time you got hip, dude. No hard feelings, DUDE. And I did not say anything about it, just asked what it meant. But for the record, people who cannot speak proper English and must make up new words while still having trouble with the old ones, I find amusing. By this, I do not mean you, but mean whoever decided to coin a new abbreviation there."urbandictionary" pretty well sums up a picture of the intelligence of the people behind it also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 rofl sums up a picture of the intelligence of the people behind it also. Yep. On the upside though, at least they know what the feck they're talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 You are actually fun JonS. While I think we probably disagree on everything, you take a punch and give back. Good job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 That is true, but all I've been getting from this thread and the other one are butterfly kisses. Kettler is more intellectually honest and rigourous than you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Dude, you really need to get with our shibbolethic neologisms. Otherwise you'll never be a zeitgeistermeister. BTW Jon doesn't necessarily disagree with you, just want a more rigorous argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 That is true, but all I've been getting from this thread and the other one are butterfly kisses. Kettler is more intellectually honest and rigourous than you.[/quote Amusing. I actually knew what butterfly kisses were, but interesting you have a ready link to that source. I actually did not put up this post TO ARGUE, just that I think there is still open debate to be had on this issue, some of which I agree with, some of which I do not, but all of which, I think needs more close study rather than everyone just accepting one side (either side, really) at face value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Amusing. I actually knew what butterfly kisses were, but interesting you have a ready link to that source. Well, I now know how un-hip you are, and how much you love UD. So I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone and provide a link. I actually did not put up this post TO ARGUE, just that I think there is still open debate to be had lol. Yeah, right. That's why you opened with such a ridiculous article. Do you even know what an argument is? I think needs more close study rather than everyone just accepting one side Well, I don't know who this Mr. Every One is, but speaking for myself I understand that one 'side' of this argument/debate has more - and growing - evidence than you can shake a stick at, while the other has what amounts to a Theory of Intelligent Falling. Teach the controversy, indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 I am curious how wonderful that "one side" must be,when even data that would argue against it(coldest winter on record for most of the USA, for example, and one of coldest in Europe) can still be used to argue in it's favor. Clearly, that "One side" has been drinking a little to much of the Kool-Aid..or wait...that's not Kool-aid, is it.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 weather != climate US (or Europe) != globe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 weather != climate US (or Europe) != globe That is true, and I agree with it. However, the data used to argue for CLIMATE change, is ALL weather related...so use some proper data to argue your point then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 um ... how can I put this politely? You are out of your depth. Stop. Now. Speaking of now, I want my winnings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I am honestly, not even being sarcastic here...but honestly curious how the data when we are hotter than normal is explained as climate change, the data when we are colder than normal..climate change...the predictions of 0 snowfall due to climate change, then followed by explanations that record snowfall, is caused by climate change... Really, please enlighten me..wait, i Have to get something out of my system first.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA ok,now I am listening... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Do you know what "climate" is? Do you know what "change" is? nuff said? No? Ok, take a look at the links along side no.s 14, 29, 52, 53, 90, and 132 here. I want my winnings. Now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Apparently you do not know what climate change theory is however. Nor do you seem to be educated enough to know these interesting facts: 1- Glaciers melting? Give me a break...there is proof that dinosaurs walked the the area that is now frozen tundra.. There is also scientific proof that once, long ago before CO2 emissions, the central USA was under water. 2-The very same scientists who now are reporting that record snowfalls are a sign of global warming, were quoted by ABC news in 2004 stating that the effect of global warming would be gradually less and less snow,meaning states in the western USA would gradually become deserts as they depend on high mountain snows for water. I am not even necessarily on the side I am arguing here, but I AM educated, and I know BS when I see it, and the same side of an argument cannot use data from the other side that contradicts it's primary hypothesis,and spin the data 2 different ways depending on which direction it goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 sweet jeebus, it's like playing whack-a-mole. You're just a walking mouthpiece for the skeptic's talking points, aren't you. Is there any original activity going on between your ears? I understand you have no honour, but I still want my winnings. Now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 sweet jeebus, it's like playing whack-a-mole. You're just a walking mouthpiece for the skeptic's talking points, aren't you. Is there any original activity going on between your ears? I understand you have no honour, but I still want my winnings. Now. And that is the weak way to argue...and you call yourself educated..amazing. So,let me get this straight, when you cannot beat an argument, you simply call it not original,and move on? Gravity is not an original concept either, maybe you should go jump in the air and see if you keep flying...hey,for me it's a win-win situation... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Apparently you do not know what climate change theory is however. Nor do you seem to be educated enough to know these interesting facts: 1- Glaciers melting? Give me a break... Hint - it is retreating right to left..... See the article at http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/11-14/glacier.asp Here in JonS's homeland (yes, we're both pinko's from the Sth Pacific but mostly we argue...) the local glaciers are also a lot smaller than they were, say, 10 years ago. a LOT smaller there is proof that dinosaurs walked the the area that is now frozen tundra.. There is also scientific proof that once, long ago before CO2 emissions, the central USA was under water. Are you familiar with the concept of continental drift, and the difference in time ascales between geological epochs and ice ages? If you are a creationist then I can at least understand where you are coming from, although I think that is fruit-loopery too. but if you are not then your presentation of these "facts" is irrelevancy....at best. 2-The very same scientists who now are reporting that record snowfalls are a sign of global warming, were quoted by ABC news in 2004 stating that the effect of global warming would be gradually less and less snow,meaning states in the western USA would gradually become deserts as they depend on high mountain snows for water. I am not even necessarily on the side I am arguing here, but I AM educated, and I know BS when I see it, and the same side of an argument cannot use data from the other side that contradicts it's primary hypothesis,and spin the data 2 different ways depending on which direction it goes. Global warming will produce more rain and othe precipitation in some places because there will be a lot more moisture absorbed into the air. And in other places it will be drier. If they got it wrong 7 years ago for any given area that is nothing more than insufficient understanding at that time. That's what education does for you - it lets you advance your knowledge and thus correct earlier mistakes, and that applies to scientific theories as well as many other things. For example that's why we now know that atomic explosions will not proceed out of control and consume the earth, why Newtonian physics isn't sufficient to explain the universe, etc., etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Hooray for an actually well thought out reply. Not sure I agree with it, but it makes more sense than the drivel usually trotted out by that side. That said, your statement also hints at my own problem with that theory...and it is the following.. most proponents of it, are looking at only recent memory. They are not looking at recorded history that disagrees with them. Recorded history of summers in Europe that were hot enough to boil eggs on stone exposed to sun in the 1700s, or cold enough to set what was (then)records as in the Russian winter that killed Napoleon's army, or the even fiercer one that killed Hitler's....both of which(especially of course, Napoleon's) occurred, again, before there was an issue of CO2, greenhouse gasses, etc. As for the other argument,waters in the central USA, I only use that one because,. again, most of the "climate change ?experts?" point out the glaciers melting as prrof...well,there is a US state, Minnesota, where there are ancient hills,lakes,etc, all caused by glaciers moving(retreating) long before Europeans even settled in North America...and long before people were driving their SUVs.. That said, I actually consider myself a 'tree hugger' and think that we SHOULD take care of the planet, just not for the BS reasons touted by those who stand to profit from it, like GE, Al Gore, etc etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.