Is the 'Environmental' sub-Catagory a new FHOP

Did you find that evidence for AGW that you claimed AGW is based on? As soon as you do (or admit you had no idea what you were talking about) I will be glad to engage you further in discussion.

 

All the below are quotes from radioprius1 from JUST this tread!

--- "Boy that is funny, Shawn.

You continue to take digs at people without contributing anything to the discussion. Does it make you feel good about yourself to insult people?"


--- "Violence and foul language. A very simple pattern, as always."

-- "I didn't even read the rest of your post because you know so little, that it is literally like pounding my head on the wall trying to have any type of discussion with you. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid"

--- "You guys literally know nothing about this, and you go around screaming at the top of your lungs. Your lack of knowledge on the subject you so strongly believe in is astounding. I mean I can not think of a more disgusting mindset"


--- "Again, demonstrably, you are wrong. Why don't you just admit, at least to yourself, that you don't know really know what you are talking about and go do some research? You aren't doing anything to help yourself by consistently failing to make a point on an internet message board. You really need to do some reading."
(Please note that priusradio did not "demonstrate how anyone was wrong)

--- "LOL ....The most you post the wronger you get. Thank you for giving me a good laugh this evening. (Again did not point out how anyone was wrong, just stated "YOU ARE WRONG" LOL)


--- "Wow. What a total failure. Thank you for publicly verifying that you know very little about AGW. You cheer for it and parade around under the flag, and yet you don't know any details. You insult others who have a different opinion, because they give facts that differ from your beliefs, and yet you don't really know what you're talking about.

Really disgusting. I'm done with you"

--- "If you think your failure to bait me into a debate I don't want to participate in somehow proves your point, then I think you need to go back to high school."

WOW, proving you so wrong was both easy AND fun. If I had the time I am sure I could find personal attacks in about half your 900 posts.

So now that the troll is gone, why do you suppose "denialist" refuse to participate in any other discussions of the impact of our energy use beyond climate change? Icarus, Chuck and myself have pointed out in numerous threads that there are more issues with our energy usage than just climate change, but these concerns are never addressed. My theory is that they focus purely on "climate data" so they can ignore
how unpatriotic it is too consume energy at the rate we do. They do not want to face the damage our energy use does to our national security, to our financial security, to our grandchildren's security.
They would rather endlessly debate climate data than face the fact that everytime we pull up to a gas pump we are handing money to the terrorists. They claim the climate change is just so Al Gore and environmentalists can make money and get control over our lives, but then they ignore who is financing the "denialists".

As stated by many already, we need to look at our energy use as part of the big picture!

Can we carry on a discussion of energy use WITHOUT the personal attacks?.

 

We have had a few members at CleanMPG that need to recover from politics

• One member that constantly claimed the GM management are billionaires and ignored my requests to back those assertions up...made other cartoon book claims.
• A member on the other idiological extreme essentially said 80% of the US was socialist and bought $3000 of guns after the 2008 election.

There are other contributors here and elsewhere, and just don't see how they help anyone arrive at the truth.

I also don't understand those that engage in smash-mouth flamewars expecting the baderging to gain converts to their side....I've found increased opposition instead.

 

Rpatterman,

There was a interesting article in last weekends NY Times I believe (I confess I have not read it, only heard a review of it, just to fully disclose)

In it, he points out that there are several "identities" across the global warming spectrum, ranging from complete Alarmists, to complete deniers. There are some not so subtle differences between them.
In the mainstream, he (Brand) notes that there are "Scientist warners) who conclude that human caused global warming is real, and indeed presents a clear and present danger to our future. Then there are "skeptics". These are scientists who have not come to any conclusion about the bulk of the climate science, but at least they have an open mind about the possible causes and effects of any such change. (This number has been declining in recent years) Finally there are "Deniers, who usually (in spite of Radio Prius's protestations to the contrary, and his stated political position) come to their conclusions based largely on political biases. These people are not interested in the science, but rather they are interested in their own political agenda. Largely a right wing "no tax" "libertarian" bent, but not exclusively. These people have used the deliberate obfuscation I mentioned before to turn every argument against the science no matter how ludicrous it may be.

If you want any further evidence of this effort, consider this. The (relatively) newly formed American Natural Gas Alliance (Anga) has not been able to rival what has been spend by the Coal lobby in the last year, but even as a new organization they were able to spend ~$80,000,000 in the last year on lobbying/PR efforts! Does anyone on the denialist side HONESTLY believe that it is "environmental" groups that stand to benefit?

Finally, there is a new book out written by the "father of global warming" James Hansen, entitled "Storms of my Grandchildren, the truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity"

Just for those that don't know, James Hansen: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen]James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But what do I know,, I'm only an alarmist!

 

Yes it is ironic that many people choose to believe the corporate lobbists but believe the scientists have a hidden agenda to get more power. My frustration is that people can not see the impact of our energy use and use the "climate change debate" as an excuse to dismiss any responsibility for our energy use.

 

I believe that God created the Big Bang, but then when it blew up, he was incinerated in the Big Bang, and since then everything has been up to physics and nature.

hahahaha. just kidding, but I thought it was funny.

 

Probably too short a fuse.

Tom

 

I actually stand by those statements. What you failed to copy and paste is all the posts where people who cheerlead AGW are exposed as not knowing a single thing about it. How can someone cheerlead and talk down to "denialists" while they know nothing?

I demonstrably destroyed Icarus and Drees, and yet they still continue to act as if they are superior. That is laughable. Let's look at those:

If you would like to see Icarus get slaughtered, because he doesn't even know the most basic thing about AGW, check out this thread.

Additionally, we see "drees" claiming earth would never have warmed without human intervention, that it would have remained at the 1850 temperatures. He was summarily defeated in this post, and this post, and then completely wiped the floor with him in this post.

(And below this is the "Thanks" section from that post. You can clearly see Alric, Fibb222, icarus, and Shawn Clark all applauding drees for his post. This shows that they too did not even know the basics of AGW, thinking that the earth would have remained on a cooling trend if humans had not started producing CO2/GHGs.)



By the way, we use electricity during surgery. Since this consumes energy, do you want to debate the efficacy of different approaches to lumbar body fusions? It is related. lol

 

Who's advocating violence now?

"If you would like to see Icarus get slaughtered"

I didn't take that out of context did I, or should I call mommy and daddy to complain

BTW I responded to your drivel on several other threads, unlike you I don't feel the need to chase you all over the boards.

But what do I know, I'm only an alarmist!

 

Perhaps we let this sleeping dog lie,

Icarus