Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real. Full Story
PHD

Overton, TX

#7764 Jan 30, 2013
litesong wrote:
Wallop10 wrote:
Just ignore the troll.
//////////
'phud fetid feces face fiend' flosses:
Big words
//////////
litesong wrote:
The words of 'phud fetid feces face fiend' are.......... copied.
The feelings of 'phud fetid feces face fiend' are small.
The thoughts of 'phud fetid feces face fiend' are non-existent in the copies.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7765 Jan 30, 2013
Another day of useless cut and paste scientific science fiction from the wallop10 soon to get walloped again.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#7766 Jan 30, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
More wasted bandwidth. Once it is used it is gone....
PHD

Overton, TX

#7767 Jan 30, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
More wasted bandwidth. Once it is used it is gone....
So find another hobby that will leave more badwidth for the scientific science fiction babble.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#7768 Jan 31, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So find another hobby that will leave more badwidth for the scientific science fiction babble.
Was that a bark or just a yap?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7770 Jan 31, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they do control where it goes and they want it to grow. Which means that they will send it where it can do that and move it from where it will not.
So when those who decide the rules and how much it will cost to make things decide to make it harder and more expensive those with the capital will invest somewhere else. So when the unions decided that labor should cost more and more will eventiually cause those who invest to take that captial elsewhere where it will not cost so much. When those who pass the laws decide to follow a vain dream and decide that they are going to try and take that capital away to fund those silly things those who have capital will move it out of their reach.
Remember, you can catch more flies with sweet sweet honey than the very bitter stuff that people like you often offer.
Just as I also notice how people like complain it is unfair when those with the capital take thier money and put it somewhere safe out of your reach.
Truth is rarely sweet. Perhaps if your "truths" were less palatable to your biases they would more closely resemble facts.
litesong

Everett, WA

#7771 Jan 31, 2013
[QUOTE who "phud fetid feces face fiend" I just passed gas.....[/QUOTE]

...... an unscheduled unguided & out-of-control multi-stage rocket powered by fetid feces has been reported at the NORAD center.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7772 Jan 31, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
...... an unscheduled unguided & out-of-control multi-stage rocket powered by fetid feces has been reported at the NORAD center.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#7773 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
to PHD: Was that a bark or just a yap?
I just vote the troll a peanut and move on.
She just repeats the same trash, and it doesn't even make any sense.

She must do that all day long. What does that tell you about this person. No brain in there.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7774 Feb 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just vote the troll a peanut and move on.
She just repeats the same trash, and it doesn't even make any sense.
She must do that all day long. What does that tell you about this person. No brain in there.
I never mentioned my gender ASSumption of your---self.You beg for it so here it is.Walloped, walloped, walloped all day long. How are those walloped tires working for you?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7775 Feb 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth is rarely sweet. Perhaps if your "truths" were less palatable to your biases they would more closely resemble facts.
True, the truth is normally bitter and ugly which is why so many shy away from it.

As for who is closer to the truth, the fact that you have not considered that the truths are not palatable to your baises and that is the reason that your biases are at odds with teh facts.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7776 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just vote the troll a peanut and move on.
She just repeats the same trash, and it doesn't even make any sense.
She must do that all day long. What does that tell you about this person. No brain in there.
Actually, given what PHD has said in the past and based on various word choices the fact is that he is an older male and not female.

As for repeating the same "trash" over and over every day. Have you ever considered that you post as "trash". Many do and you post it every day. One could point to your posts and claim that you have no brain. Of course you do but I doubt you give it much exercise, that you do not try to expand your horizons but instead cling to the familiar. Hence the reason why you assumed what you did in the way that you did it.

Aa far as the judgement icons, just toys for the childish.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Loved everywhere

#7777 Feb 5, 2013
If the climate is changing, who knows ?
However, US pollution has not helped much either.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7778 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
True, the truth is normally bitter and ugly which is why so many shy away from it.
As for who is closer to the truth, the fact that you have not considered that the truths are not palatable to your baises and that is the reason that your biases are at odds with teh facts.
Would you care to specify where I have evinced a bias regarding climatology? I've only called you out for having a inability to understand basic and fundamental math and science - such as the volume of H2O in the Greenland ice sheet and the hypothetical displacement of that water on land vs. in the oceans.
.
The truth is neither bitter nor ugly. It is objective. A plant only becomes a weed when it is deemed undesirable. You wish to weed your pretty little garden of the notion that man-made emissions can or have impacted the atmosphere, and sometimes you are taken to task for evincing that bias. That isn't my fault.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7779 Feb 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to specify where I have evinced a bias regarding climatology? I've only called you out for having a inability to understand basic and fundamental math and science - such as the volume of H2O in the Greenland ice sheet and the hypothetical displacement of that water on land vs. in the oceans.
.
The truth is neither bitter nor ugly. It is objective. A plant only becomes a weed when it is deemed undesirable. You wish to weed your pretty little garden of the notion that man-made emissions can or have impacted the atmosphere, and sometimes you are taken to task for evincing that bias. That isn't my fault.
And your claim that I cannot understand basic math and science about things like the volume of water in the Greenland Ice Sheet. Funny thing is I doubt you have ever done the math in how much water is in the Greenland Ice Sheet.

It is also funny how you talking about weeding. When you are guilty of pruning the facts to fit your beliefs. Many of those who are trying to take me to task are only doing so because I am bring up those uncomfortable ugly truths.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7780 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, given what PHD has said in the past and based on various word choices the fact is that he is an older male and not female.
As for repeating the same "trash" over and over every day. Have you ever considered that you post as "trash". Many do and you post it every day. One could point to your posts and claim that you have no brain. Of course you do but I doubt you give it much exercise, that you do not try to expand your horizons but instead cling to the familiar. Hence the reason why you assumed what you did in the way that you did it.
Aa far as the judgement icons, just toys for the childish.
There you go again making an ASSumption of your---self. One could say based on your various word choices you have less than a K level education. Its not trash its fact they spew scientific science fiction and nothing more.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7781 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And your claim that I cannot understand basic math and science about things like the volume of water in the Greenland Ice Sheet. Funny thing is I doubt you have ever done the math in how much water is in the Greenland Ice Sheet.
It is also funny how you talking about weeding. When you are guilty of pruning the facts to fit your beliefs. Many of those who are trying to take me to task are only doing so because I am bring up those uncomfortable ugly truths.
Been there done that and don't see a reason to do it again. Flip back a few pages. You either forgot through convenience or it is beyond your comprehension. I suspect the latter, though it completely baffles me how such a simple thing could be.
Why don't you stop before (the unlikely event that) it dawns on you why you should be embarrassed?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't quote, calculate. Do the math yourself, think for yourself. That is if you can. Instead of quoting others who are wrong you should do the calculations and quote yourself instead of quoting predictions that are obviously wrong after only a few years.
CM wrote:
Alright, then. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1/210 the area of the global water surface and averages 5000 feet thick. Reduce that by 10%(water also varies in density according to its temperature) for the volume of ice compared to the volume of water gives you "water thickness" of about 4500 feet. 210 divided into 4500 = 21.4 feet.(I'll grant that as seawater level rise, the continental slope increases the area of the ocean surface, so I'll go with the 6 meter vs. the 7 meter approximation.) Do you suffer from some infirmity that prohibits you from those same simple calculations?
And again, that does not at all address the rest of the landbound ice - just the Greenland Ice sheet.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet a 8.35 block of ice will occupy less volume and a equal weight in water will occupy even less volume.
The question discuss is about volume not mass. And the fact is that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth of frozen water will not occupy the same volume once it returns to a liquid form.
If I am wrong then show me a creditable source that proves that an equal mass of water will occupy the same amount of volume in both the solid and liquid state. I managed to find one creditable link that proves me right.
CM wrote:
Not only are you barking up the wrong tree, you have the tree confused with a sailboat. Landbound ice displaces ZERO ZILCH NADA NO water until it enters a body of water. Even so, if you float a bucket containing either a lb of ice or a lb. of water, both will displace EXACTLY the same volume of water. 2 ships can weigh the same and have a completely different densities - but they still DISPLACE THE SAME tonnage. This is ELEMENTARY

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7782 Feb 5, 2013
Nothing to say about my post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
ChromiuMan wrote:
PHD

Overton, TX

#7783 Feb 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nothing to say about my post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
<quoted text>
Well try something different.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7784 Feb 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
You watch FOX News a lot, don't you?
You can throw out half of that common sense model of supply and demand when you consider: 1) supply and distribution is held by a relatively small number of entities.
Throw out half? Go off half cocked, I think not. Supply and demand rules, all the government does is get in the way.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
2) Domestic oil is traded on the world market. Increasing the amount of US oil production merely puts more oil up for sale. It has a minimal impact on the amount of gasoline available at the pump.
We need more refineries, more pipelines, more infrastructure and more production and use of energy and fuel.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
3) The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators and investment factors creating market fluctuations.
The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators, investors, producers and consumers. There is a market psychology, an equilibrium. I'm for growth, increasing production but reducing prices.

Climate change mitigators don't support fossil fuel growth; this is where we differ.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
4) Domestic resources are being drilled by foreign companies through leases. Comparatively, US leases are more favorable to foreign countries than foreign leases are to American drillers. We only receive 13%- 23% of our oil from Persian/African wells. By far most of the oil we consume is from the US, S.A. and Canada.
I don't care who takes advantage to create energy, fuel and jobs; foreign investors are welcome too. I'm for growth.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Closing an onshore factory does reduce its pollution. It also creates a demand for cheap products, since job losses decrease the average wage. Naturally, the primary reason for outsourcing is to increase profit margins - and creating new facilities in countries that have few to no minimum wages, environmental controls and labor protection laws should certainly do that, barring gross mismanagement.
This is the problem with the green movement; they kill domestic jobs then blame the greedy. Sweet!

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
To infer that government regulations and unions are the cause of making increased profits desirable to executives and shareholders is irrational.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Portlandia 1,155,588
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 8 min Cheftell 68,907
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 14 min JOEL 71,208
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 55 min loose cannon 182,041
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr PEllen 98,873
Dear Abby 12-25 2 hr PEllen 1
amy 12-25 2 hr PEllen 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:09 pm PST

Bleacher Report10:09PM
Bears vs. Vikings: Breaking Down Minnesota's Game Plan
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Breaking Down Colts' Game Plan vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 5:00 AM
Can't-Miss Picks and Matchup Guide
Bleacher Report 8:09 AM
Breaking Down Bears' Game Plan vs. Vikings
NBC Sports 9:15 AM
Lance Briggs "happy" with Robbie Gould's comments