Facts, Science smash the Global Warming Myth

[240 is Back]

Erm, good response.

I have to go lay in a hammock and watch my Rainbows play today.  yes, I'll post 315 times while grading college papers and running a FT business, and yes, I will still deliver good responses.

Rule #1: You can make up anything you want on the web.  You can dropout and still be a univ professor if you believe in Clinton values strongly enough.

[BRUCE]

I have to go lay in a hammock and watch my Rainbows play today.  yes, I'll post 315 times while grading college papers and running a FT business, and yes, I will still deliver good responses.

Rule #1: You can make up anything you want on the web.  You can dropout and still be a univ professor if you believe in Clinton values strongly enough.

Nah, I'm over studying, how 'bout you?

[240 is Back]

Nah, I'm over studying, how 'bout you?

I was doing a BB impersonation. 

I believe I am done studying unless I go for a law degree.  Doubtful though.

[BRUCE]

I was doing a BB impersonation. 

I believe I am done studying unless I go for a law degree.  Doubtful though.

I was aware of that!  Law is too intense for me - meanwhile I picked up a new job this week, maybe I'll start putting that degree to good use.

[240 is Back]

I was aware of that!  Law is too intense for me - meanwhile I picked up a new job this week, maybe I'll start putting that degree to good use.

it's good to have ya back, LSD.

[Straw Man]

I was aware of that!  Law is too intense for me - meanwhile I picked up a new job this week, maybe I'll start putting that degree to good use.

no suprise there

presenting an argument supported by facts is clearly a challenge for you

[tu_holmes]

You don't think he's profiteering from global warming scare tactics?  Cage?  Anyone?

No I dont. No, because you'll just say the same things... you'll point me to a website that says he's on a board of investors... You invest too... do you invest in things you DON'T believe in? If he believes that alternative fuels will save the planet, and he invests in THOSE... that's very consistent with what he speaks about.

Now, if he invested in Exxon-Mobile, then I'd have a problem.

Your term "profiteering"... interesting.


prof·it·eer       (prŏf'ĭ-tîr')  Pronunciation Key
n.   One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.

That's what oil companies do... Alternative fuels would be designed to be in HIGH supply.

[BRUCE]

it's good to have ya back, LSD.

I'm actually Jimmy Simon.

[240 is Back]

I'm actually Jimmy Simon.

Hi goatboy!

[BRUCE]

Hi goatboy!

 

[Camel Jockey]

Where the fuck is Mr. I? 

[240 is Back]

Where the fuck is Mr. I? 

searching the rush member archive for a response?

[ieffinhatecardio]

I don't even support Gore on this issue but reading how moronic the dissenting view has been on this thread I think I might have changed my mind.

BTW, 240's point is a good one. If Gore has a positive effect on the way people view Global Warming then it's a very good thing. I may not like the man but I see that point and I agree with it.

[dkf360]

I don't even support Gore on this issue but reading how moronic the dissenting view has been on this thread I think I might have changed my mind.

BTW, 240's point is a good one. If Gore has a positive effect on the way people view Global Warming then it's a very good thing. I may not like the man but I see that point and I agree with it.

No shit.  It's funny how Bruce thinks he's implicitly providing evidence about AG being a hypocrite, but 1) his points are not cohesive  and 2) he lacks fundamental debating skills, so all he's doing is making himself look like a fool.

[BRUCE]

No shit.  It's funny how Bruce thinks he's implicitly providing evidence about AG being a hypocrite, but 1) his points are not cohesive  and 2) he lacks fundamental debating skills, so all he's doing is making himself look like a fool.

Care to share with the rest of us which parts are incoherent?  The irony is that you would accuse me of lacking 'fundamental debating skills' and yet your 'argument' contains not one piece of information or evidence.

Oh, and just so you know, providing actual resources for you to take note of is not ‘implicitly’ providing information – which by definition is an oxymoron anyway, as evidence given is by nature explicit.

[Straw Man]

Care to share with the rest of us which parts are incoherent?  The irony is that you would accuse me of lacking 'fundamental debating skills' and yet your 'argument' contains not one piece of information or evidence.

Oh, and just so you know, providing actual resources for you to take note of is not ‘implicitly’ providing information – which by definition is an oxymoron anyway, as evidence given is by nature explicit.

you're the only one who can't see it

[BRUCE]

you're the only one who can't see it

Yes, you would post such empty words, having been embarassed in debate earlier.

[Straw Man]

Yes, you would post such empty words, having been embarassed in debate earlier.

clearly

[dkf360]

Care to share with the rest of us which parts are incoherent?  The irony is that you would accuse me of lacking 'fundamental debating skills' and yet your 'argument' contains not one piece of information or evidence.

Oh, and just so you know, providing actual resources for you to take note of is not ‘implicitly’ providing information – which by definition is an oxymoron anyway, as evidence given is by nature explicit.

I'm glad you saw the irony in my statement, as it defines your whole argument.  In your mind, you believe you have provided evidence to support your view (insert -> implicit), but none of what's provided is useful for this debate.