Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups
>>
>> Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are
>> EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human
>> activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend?
>>
>>> ...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must
>>> take strong action. That's Marxist?
>>
>> Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who
>> believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the
>> number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are
>> evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The
>> number of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a
>> percentage of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller
>> percentage of all scientists.
>>
>> The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take
>> radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are
>> made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your
>> pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for
>> what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good."
>>
>>> Hardly.
>>
>> You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist.
>>
>>> We stand a strong change of terrible consequences.
>>
>> Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which
>> contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your
>> position that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a
>> problem -- and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of
>> whether human activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the
>> extent to which human activity plays a role in global warming or the
>> extent to which changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You
>> have predictions, prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that
>> there's a problem or that altering my behavior will have any affect on
>> it. Until science has clear answers, go **** yourself.
>>
>>> Many independent scientists,
>>
>> About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them.
>>
>>> MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming.
>>
>> NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists.
>
> As a statement they do.

No, you bumbling twit. Read the link below. It's from a NOAA scientist
who withdrew from a conference because of the same kind of
politicization of the issue you find so appealing.

>> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901
>>
>>> You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi
>>
>> No, funded by a cross-section of car makers.
>
> With a Mittsubishi emblem.

Cool. So the **** what?

> They are the car makers.

So the **** what? They breathe the same air you do, drink the same water
you do, and have to live on the same planet you do. They've taken
responsible actions to reduce emissions. They also don't want YOU to
tell them what to make because YOUR ideas aren't what OTHER CONSUMERS want.

> Hardly free minded.

You're an elitist asshole, Boob. You're the one who's not free-minded.
You object to the choices consumers have because you think you know
better than the market and the suppliers in at least this instance (and
I'm pretty sure you'd deny others any choices in the other areas of
their lives).

>>> and say big deal.
>>
>> I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say
>> about the issue.
>>
>> http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67
>> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887
>> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>>> Insult me some more
>>
>> Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better?
>>
>>>>>>> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say
>>>>>> Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of
>>>>>> the greater good -- notions which our Founders would've
>>>>>> strenuously objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I
>>>>>> shall. You make your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for
>>>>>> your good.
>>>>>
> Many sites predict horrendous consequences.

Many more don't. The objective ones tell us that science has NOT reached
a consensus on the nature of the problem, or even if there is one. YOU
want to make radical change despite that fact. I refuse to without more
evidence.

> And you won't even consider them.

I have considered them. The science isn't established that there is a
problem, or that human activities are the reason. There's no evidence,
either, that altering human activity will "fix" the problem (if one
exists). I object to radical change on the basis of what you feel.

> You're closed minded.

No, bumbling twit, I'm open-minded. I'm waiting for scientists to reach
a consensus before I advocate people make expensive, radical changes
that may not even fix the problem. You want people to adopt your leftist
ideology (i.e., that there is a problem which needs to be fixed) and
embrace leftist policies (i.e., give up their capitalism for your
socialism). Scientists are EVENLY SPLIT -- a point which seems to go
right over your FLAT HEAD -- on the issue of whether human activity
plays any role in global warming. You're the one with the closed mind on
this issue.

> You're more influenced by groups funded by special interests.

I'm influenced by the *science*. Scientists are NOT in accord that human
activity plays a role, or that altering human activity will "solve"
anything.

> That's stupid.

YOU are stupid, bumbling twit.

> Chose INDEPENDENT groups.

Choose, moron. And I'm already being independent in my assessment of the
situation. That's why I observe the fact that scientists are split and
choose to wait for consensus on the issue. You, otoh, have made up your
lone flickering braincell and have decided that your politics supercede
the science and everyone's freedom. I say, **** you!

>>>>> I'm not a Marxist,
>>>>
>>>> You're a Marxist and a liar.
>>>>
>>>>> MANY believe we must take strong action
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
>>>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm
>>>>
>>>>> I make a few typos. Insult me for it.
>>>>
>>>> Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now?
>
> Marx know knothing about global warming.

He was full of hot air, and so are you.

> In fact, the former Communist
> nations have horrendous polutions.

Then why are you pushing their politics upon everyone?

> But still the US produces the most
> greenhouse gasses.

So what?

> An anology is wrong.

Only when you try to make one, twit.