ScottSA

The warming trend during the middle ages did the earth a great deal of good. It's not clear to me how longer growing periods with better plant food (CO2) and shorter winters is going to be a bad thing. Oh, right...4" of sea level increase, maybe, over the next 100 or so years.

Count me in on that one. Never argued otherwise. ...and given that you are clearly not a supporter of the CPC, I would say that you have established nothing of the sort. I highlighted the key word in the statement with which I agreed. Well, by now you've retreated so far from your original position that you need a telescope to even see it. And, I might add, parsed it right out of existence. What do you mean you agree with the "if?" You don't agree with the thought that the "if" hinges on? You did define not celebrating multiculturalism as racism or xenophobia, or whatever the various stops on your fighting retreat were, right? Yet here you're agreeing with an "if" that seems to disagree with your ever diminishing argument at its very core. You seem to be saying now that you're a believer in "if," but little else, and are therefore not a CPC supporter.

Given that you agreed with Kimmy in the following instance: Count me in on that one. Never argued otherwise. ...and given that you are clearly not a supporter of the CPC, I would say that you have established nothing of the sort.

You have a few different topics shoved in there. "Pollution" doesn't equal CO2, the poles are not melting, and keeping an open mind does not involve rushing out to spend billions on a whim. Common sense would suggest that if the earth has heated and cooled many times before ever a smokestack was built, that manmade CO2 has very little to do with it. Common sense would suggest that if even the IPCC has revised downward it's prediction from a 6' rise to a 4" rise over 100 years, that we ought not start jumping off buildings to avoid the melting pole apocalypse quite yet. Common sense would suggest that we ought to reduce pollution, as distinct from CO2 to the greatest extent possible without destroying the economy. That's common sense. What most folks here are talking about is hemp sandaled hipness.

Kyoto may or may not be the answer, that's not what I'm arguing here, I'm arguing about the number of peer-reviewed scientific journals which agree with human causes of GW vs. the others. You are implying that they are getting their funding from environment groups at the same time that you are neither denying nor confirming that the naysayers are getting their funding from special interest groups. Are you implying that with the billions of dollars in revenue earned by the special interests groups, a handful of scientists who are on the fringes of the community is the best they can come up with..... meanwhile the environmental groups somehow have to resources to pay off the thousands of scientists who argue otherwise? Your question presupposes that they ARE trying to influence public opinion, and that is what I question. And in spite of your ad hominem directed at the list of scientists, it works both ways...there are very few scientists who actually deal with global warming on ANY side, and those who do make up a hugely disparate crowd with numerous opinions and axes to grind. You'll find that a large number of scientists flogging the human cause side are biologists or piano teachers or English professors with a great deal less expertise than those you claim are on the "fringes."But really, you're not interested in the truth; you're interested in what's hip. Have at 'er.

Every scientist with an opinion is funded by someone, or else they'd be washing dishes. To say that scientists who argue against global warming are paid lackeys of G&O companies is as silly as saying that scientists who argue for it are lackeys of the Sieraa Club or the UN, which is where much of their funding comes from. And if this is the case; if scientists can simply be bought of by the highest bidder; then what's the point of listening to them at all? There is not a consensus...there never was. There may be a rough consensus that global warming is taking place, as it did many times in the past, but there is certainly not a consensus that human emissions are causing or even appreciably affecting it. Nor is there any kind of consensus at all that Kyoto is going to fix it even if there were no other debates. In fact, many GW advocates now openly admit that Kyoto is not the answer. I know it's hip and liberal and "openminded" to believe anything the hemp sandal wearing crowd says, but even the IPCC is revising downwards its apocalyptic predictions, and it's about as one-sided as it gets.

Yes, I realise that. Still doesn't mean they deserve their own thread. My thread on Dion being the same old Liberal or new has already been hijacked in this direction. Well then, I guess we can expect you to ignore this thread. More and more scientists are surfacing in opposition to this entire global warming circus; it's just a matter of time before the backlash arrives. Quite possibly just in time for the next election.

But 11 minutes ago you said this. Why did you flip flop on an issue of such vital national interest? And then there's his attack on Harper for not being a fiscal conservative, while at the same time castigating Harper for being a mean spirited fiscal conservative.

Your sentence was a generalization. You took the whole account of civilian deaths caused by the Israeli military and declare them all to have been unavoidable. Yet, to anyone with half a grain of sense, this would stand out as being impossible. Dollar to a dime, some of the civilian casualties caused by the military could of been prevented had soldiers done their jobs better. Thus, your statement is, in fact, incorrect. They are all avoidable of course. All Israel has to do is pack up and move into the sea, thereby avoiding any and all Palestinian casualties. But the point is that Israel does not set out to kill civilians, whereas Hamas proudly does. It is a fundamental distinction that goes to the very root of the Geneva Convention and international law. Given that Israel has chosen to fight instead of willingly embark upon yet another holocaust, and given that its enemy chooses to fight from amidst a civilian population, the civilian casualties Israel inflicts are unavoidable. It's not a question of soldiers "doing their jobs better," as you so blithely put it, it's a case of physics: explosions are not refined enough to kill only select individuals. Nor is it reasonable to say, given the nature of modern battle between an enemy embedded in a civilian population and a fielded force, that any civilian casualties are avoidable. Your specific argument; that jbg's post is a fallacy; is not supported by your observation that it is a generalization. The two are not synonymous. One can claim that clouds are white. It is a generalization and doesn't hold true in some cases, yet it is not a fallacy. It is not a logically inconsistent or unsound observation. It is a generalization, but not a fallacy.

Is this your version of a "nyah nyah?" Is it something that should be looked at by a professional?

LMAO So your street corner psycho-analysis is perfectly capable of disecting someones actions but mine is dismissable? I love the double standard you guys cling to like a life preserver. The fact that he felt the need to describe others who don't share his point of view in that manner shows he has issues. Your defense of such stereotyping is laughable and only shows you are of a like mind. But I didn't offer a psychological analysis. You did. Just like you're offering one of me now. Thank you so much. I'll give it deep thought. Ok, now that I've thought about it, I'll toss it out back with all the other analyses and threats that seem to fall like hail from whiny, thoughtless, emotionally insecure ideologues who post without thought, and whose idea of research is to check an internet site of like-minded twits. Of course I'm not talking about you here, so don't go getting all twitterpated and start lunging at the "report this post" button quite yet; I'm just borrowing Argus' generic description for whiny, thoughtless, emotionally insecure ideologues who post without thought, and whose idea of research is to check an internet site of like-minded twits, or who develop, from hundreds of miles away, great meta-theories of personality involving people one has never met.

Do you need a hug?? Runningdog seems more in need of a hug. Anyone who uses the term "hurtful" and "angry" to describe other points of view is either a propagandist or has an extremely tenuous hold on their emotions... So you missed the obvious anger and abject distain displayed in the above post. Seems to me like there is some pent up anger issues that should be dealt with. Well, maybe it seems that way to you, but it seems possible to me that he's just tired of listening to whiny, thoughtless, emotionally insecure ideologues who post without thought, and whose idea of research is to check an internet site of like-minded twits. It's not particularly "pent-up," either, to borrow from your street-corner psychological "analysis," since he actually allows it to escape and apparently run rampant over your sensibilities.

More victimization. I certainly never threatened you. I was just watching and seeing a repeat of the same behaviour that sent you to the sidelines once before. You see to be oblivious to the fact. Oh well. If I thought for a moment that I was suspended for my "colourful views," I wouldn't be here right now. I don't have any use whatsoever for the lockstep mindmeld unity of right-think you seem enamoured of. If I'm not mistaken, I was suspeded for calling fags fags or something, but as it was explained to me, Greg only has time to look at reported posts and certainly not enough time to read everything. So if I were you, I'd start leaning on the "report this post" button so as to preserve the unity of thought and right-think you seem to treasure. Then you can go back to tremulating over Harper's coif in the secure knowledge that no heretical ideas are circulating...

Baloney. Your belligerence and bluster seem to lead you to attacks that send you to the penalty box. Stop playing the victim. Seems to me that you're the one blustering and belligerating. And threatening. Not to mention ad homineming. But hey...if you prefer to threaten rather than argue, that's your call!

Count me in on that one. Never argued otherwise. Then what exactly are you arguing? You've retreated in what amounts to a rout from your original position, yet you're still firing broadsides hither and yon in what seems to have become an argument based on "feelings" about the the political bent of "racists," although you're having an increasingly hard time defining just what you mean by even that term. You've contradicted yourself numerous times, tossing words out as if they were breadcrumbs and not units of textual meaning, leaping from "racist" to "xenophobe" to "supremacist" and then scrambling to define them or what at least you mean by them as an afterthought. You accuse Scribblet of xenophobia in one breath and agree with Kimmy that it's a good thing when she says the same thing in the next breath. I think what you're really doing is attempting to defend a flippant remark you made without thinking, and that you have never really taken the time to examine your prejudices. It's a common failing in our society...the art of thought in an era of mass stimulation is for the most part lost, and the excess stimulation tends to drive most people to the simple heuristic of looking at the world through unexamined bytes and slogans. This tendency explains, I think, why so many in the west are slavishly concerned with "openess" and "acceptance" as a Virtu unto itself. Discrimination, once upon a time when words had more depth of meaning, used to be seen as a good thing; as an ability to parse the good from the bad. Now that ability is seen, foolishly, as a bad thing. All of these ideations and superstitions seem to lie as a subtext under your vague arguments. Perhaps it's time to take a good look at exactly what you DO believe and THEN write it down, instead of simply thinking by the seat of your pants as you write.

That's funny. Because I could have sworn you were suspended. And since I had nothing to do with it, I don't know who's tendencies you are referring to. I'm refering to yours. It's a mark of fascism to retreat...not to a comprehensive argument; not to a statement of principle; but instead to a threat, or in your case an innuendo, an implication of threat. In the absence of a counterargument, you need to cow the opposition instead. The Sturmabteilung were past masters at the technique.

As in the other reports on this subject, Aljazeera.com (not aljazeera.net) headlined it with 'Israel' and quoted him saying 'regime'. The "regime" in Israel is democracy. Do you think Madjab would be just peachy with Israel if it were say, a totalitarian state? Is that what you think he meant? That he's just fine with Jews, but not so fine with democracy? Sweal, all this backpedalling is just going to get you in even hotter water than you're in right now.

Does it matter to you if siblings are allowed to marry each other? Does it matter to you if polygamy is allowed?

Thank you. No, thank you. Thank you for pointing out that you are more interested in political correctness than the actual truth. That's actually scary.

Here's a few to get you started: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 I had in mind something a little less..well...UNish, if you take my meaning. I meant something with some meat to it...not predicated by Global Warming "could" and "may" and "if" and "might." And I say the UN, because it has a huge interest in perpetuating this nonsense.

Weren't you suspended for your colourful views? Nope. But I see it doesn't take much to draw fascist tendencies to the surface...

Would anyone like to take a wild guess as to which logical fallacy that statement represents? No, I'd rather you tell me. I don't think it's a logical fallacy at all, and I'd like to see you defend your statement.

Yeah, who cares about Africa anyways Who cares if thousands...probably millions of them die Link please? Is this like the 600,000 Iraqi children who were killed by sanctions, or the bodyless Jenin massacre or the 20,000 American casualties who didn't get casualated in GWI? See, you can't just claim nonsense like this and expect to get away with it unchallenged. Desertification by goats is far more of a danger to Africans than some incredibly moderate increase in temperature.

Maybe you should form a group, a brigade, and name it something like "Wiggers," or "Follicleites," and then sack his office looking for evidence of his bills, so you can shock the country. The country, after all, seems to have fallen asleep in the face of this egregious offense against all things decent and worthy and needs a wakeup call. To the barracades!

Given that both Mars and Venus are "suffering" from Global Warming as well, I suspect you're right. The only issue I have is with the idea that Global Warming is going to be bad. As far as I can tell, outside of a few unlucky places, GW will be a net benefit to humanity.