Global warming is depressing. Like Conservatives, why not ignore it?

There are 20 comments on the Globe and Mail story from Aug 10, 2012, titled Global warming is depressing. Like Conservatives, why not ignore it?. In it, Globe and Mail reports that:

I don't know about you but I can no longer read reports, books or news stories about the devastation being wrought by global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Globe and Mail.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#21 Aug 13, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Allow me to explain.<quoted text>Not quite, I meant those "more apt to follow the science" blindly.<quoted text>But few 'alarmists' ever bother to ask questions, that's why they're classed as believers.<quoted text>It's time you gave up with your 'conspiracy' theory.<quoted text>You know better than that.
PS: It's nice to see you've recovered from your spate of one word responses.
The short responses are as productive with the closed minded as reasoned responses. First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic. If our scientific opinions are not based in scientific observations and facts then what are they based upon? It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#22 Aug 14, 2012
DumBozo wrote:
The short responses are as productive with the closed minded as reasoned responses. First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic. If our scientific opinions are not based in scientific observations and facts then what are they based upon? It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs.
That is a pathetic response.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#23 Aug 14, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>That is a pathetic response.
I am to understand then,that you do not base your opinions on scientific observations and facts? That your understanding is conspiratorial?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#24 Aug 14, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>That is a pathetic response.
In a way it was pathetic, and it was real.

"The short responses are as productive with the closed minded as reasoned responses. First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic. If our scientific opinions are not based in scientific observations and facts then what are they based upon? It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs."

Patriot described the method by which he believes.

First consensus,

"First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic."

As long as everyone believes, it's OK. They are right to believe because nothing can disprove their beliefs.

"It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs"

The above describes exactly what they do. How many times have we posted data that refutes what they have said, what do they do, they 'denigrate the science' they insist is was produced by 'big oil'.

Pathetic, but true.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#25 Aug 14, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
In a way it was pathetic, and it was real.
"The short responses are as productive with the closed minded as reasoned responses. First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic. If our scientific opinions are not based in scientific observations and facts then what are they based upon? It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs."
Patriot described the method by which he believes.
First consensus,
"First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic."
As long as everyone believes, it's OK. They are right to believe because nothing can disprove their beliefs.
"It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs"
The above describes exactly what they do. How many times have we posted data that refutes what they have said, what do they do, they 'denigrate the science' they insist is was produced by 'big oil'.
Pathetic, but true.
Brilliant post!!

Attacking the messenger appears to be their preferred method of defence, mostly accusing them of not having any science.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#26 Aug 14, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Brilliant post!!
Attacking the messenger appears to be their preferred method of defence, mostly accusing them of not having any science.
Pitiful defense.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#27 Aug 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Pitiful defense.
It is a 'pitiful defense' and we wonder why you continue to do it.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#28 Aug 14, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a 'pitiful defense' and we wonder why you continue to do it.
Fun Facts, why don't you post some real facts?
kal

West Richland, WA

#29 Aug 14, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
In a way it was pathetic, and it was real.
"The short responses are as productive with the closed minded as reasoned responses. First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic. If our scientific opinions are not based in scientific observations and facts then what are they based upon? It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs."
Patriot described the method by which he believes.
First consensus,
"First I am not an alarmist. That is a word that you must use to bolster your misinformed opinions. Second, we are all believers. Since there are no scientific absolutes, we must believe our senses and logic."
As long as everyone believes, it's OK. They are right to believe because nothing can disprove their beliefs.
"It becomes obvious that those who do not base their scientific arguments upon scientific facts must first denigrate the science in a conspiratorial manner to bolster their beliefs"
The above describes exactly what they do. How many times have we posted data that refutes what they have said, what do they do, they 'denigrate the science' they insist is was produced by 'big oil'.
Pathetic, but true.
oh but 'facts', it appears they might have found a new way to get their consensus, it may in fact be part of their conspiracy after all. it is not 'science' by nice guys anymore it seems.

http://www.infowars.com/national-weather-serv...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#30 Aug 14, 2012
kal wrote:
<quoted text>oh but 'facts', it appears they might have found a new way to get their consensus, it may in fact be part of their conspiracy after all. it is not 'science' by nice guys anymore it seems.
http://www.infowars.com/national-weather-serv...
My, my. Nothing like getting all stirred up. Conspiracies galore. Better build a bunker and hoard weapons to defend your property! The commies are coming!
kal

West Richland, WA

#31 Aug 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text> My, my. Nothing like getting all stirred up. Conspiracies galore. Better build a bunker and hoard weapons to defend your property! The commies are coming!
oh my 'bozo', you are amazing.
kal

West Richland, WA

#32 Aug 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am to understand then,that you do not base your opinions on scientific observations and facts? That your understanding is conspiratorial?
oh good 'bozo','scientific' observations and facts, and all without conspiratorial bias in a preconcieved planned result. of course taxpayer funded government 'scientists' can be trusted to be honest and truthful in their goals to gain more free funding money. the stockpile of ammo is simply needed to keep their weather balloons from floating away to far and getting into the wrong hands.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/13...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33 Aug 14, 2012
kal wrote:
<quoted text>oh good 'bozo','scientific' observations and facts, and all without conspiratorial bias in a preconcieved planned result. of course taxpayer funded government 'scientists' can be trusted to be honest and truthful in their goals to gain more free funding money. the stockpile of ammo is simply needed to keep their weather balloons from floating away to far and getting into the wrong hands.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/13...
Again you must resort to supporting a conspiracy by scientists to bilk the government. The only way the denialism can exist. Even some of the most skeptical scientists agree that global warming is a reality and that we are adding to the warming.
kal

West Richland, WA

#34 Aug 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you must resort to supporting a conspiracy by scientists to bilk the government. The only way the denialism can exist. Even some of the most skeptical scientists agree that global warming is a reality and that we are adding to the warming.
oh 'bozo', what a pile of b s.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#35 Aug 14, 2012
kal wrote:
oh my 'bozo', you are amazing.
And then some.
He's trying to circle the wagons on his own.
kal

West Richland, WA

#36 Aug 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you must resort to supporting a conspiracy by scientists to bilk the government. The only way the denialism can exist. Even some of the most skeptical scientists agree that global warming is a reality and that we are adding to the warming.
oh but 'bozo', you must have realized it is indeed strange that a group of taxpayers funded weathermen, or 'climate scientists' in your terms, need a huge stockpile of ammo. it is all on the same level as finding out your family dog ordered a ton of kitty litter to be delivered, and charged it to your account. why would such a unusual thing not seem strange? that sure seems like denial to me.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#37 Aug 14, 2012
kal wrote:
<quoted text>oh but 'bozo', you must have realized it is indeed strange that a group of taxpayers funded weathermen, or 'climate scientists' in your terms, need a huge stockpile of ammo. it is all on the same level as finding out your family dog ordered a ton of kitty litter to be delivered, and charged it to your account. why would such a unusual thing not seem strange? that sure seems like denial to me.
First that is not a huge stockpile.

First, how many individuals are we talking about? How many rounds per person? If there are 500, this amounts to 80 rounds per person. Good grief, quit looking behind every bush for a commie.

That means that they each get one target, and 80 rounds of ammunition.

Not a whole lot if you ask me.

Go take a cold shower.
kal

West Richland, WA

#38 Aug 14, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
First that is not a huge stockpile.
First, how many individuals are we talking about? How many rounds per person? If there are 500, this amounts to 80 rounds per person. Good grief, quit looking behind every bush for a commie.
That means that they each get one target, and 80 rounds of ammunition.
Not a whole lot if you ask me.
Go take a cold shower.
oh wow 'bozo', there are far more numbers than that, and only on this one news release. armed weathermen, 1500 of them with 62000 taxpayers supplied hollowpoint rounds in a neighbourhood near you. makes 'climate science come to life for some don't you think? must be planning a picknick for the kids later this summer. imagine, al gore balloons, a sceptic dunk tank, hansen lookalike contest, shoot the ...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39 Aug 14, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Too damn right!
Keep up the good work.
..
ֿ
What good work?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#40 Aug 14, 2012
kal wrote:
<quoted text>oh wow 'bozo', there are far more numbers than that, and only on this one news release. armed weathermen, 1500 of them with 62000 taxpayers supplied hollowpoint rounds in a neighbourhood near you. makes 'climate science come to life for some don't you think? must be planning a picknick for the kids later this summer. imagine, al gore balloons, a sceptic dunk tank, hansen lookalike contest, shoot the ...
That is only 41.3 bullets each. I have more than that many rounds in my possession. However they are not all hollow points. Try to calm down. There are no black helicopters coming for you and the contrails are not being laced with aluminum to give you Alzheimer's. HAARP is not intended for brain wave control. Go take a cold shower.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Will You be Buying the iPhone 6? (Sep '14) 56 min kadikoysukacagi 67
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 18,851
How can I print out HTC phone text messages? 3 hr Lora_14 5
How to print text messages from android smart p... (Aug '14) 3 hr Lora_14 13
News Who Inspired You to be an Engineer? 10 hr We Heat Thins 67
News Concord: Prosecutors decline to file charges in... (Oct '14) 11 hr Loquito yo 13
News How to recover lost data from iPhone, iPad and ... 17 hr MattW0430 3
More from around the web