Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
![]()
Beach Runner wrote:
The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations. Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you. You only respond to the radical right Oxymoron. Radicalism refers to the far left, and you're the one calling for RADICAL change in light of QUESTIONABLE data. stick your head up your ass I don't care to look like you. and ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, You're appealing to authority. I sincerely question the reliability of arguments made by your sources, particularly since the data are admittedly flimsy. Too bad you're uncritical where it suits your leftist agenda. people without agendas except science, Ipse dixit. I've shown you a poll of scientists and references to other polls which show that scientists are evenly split on the issue of global warming and whether human activity is causing it to escalate. Evenly divided, you twit. The data do not make a convincing case for global warming. We should NOT formulate policy on the basis of unanswered questions. We should NOT abandon our way of life to practice your austere brand of socialism simply because you pick and choose your sources. Like the Republican Governor of Alaska. Another strawman. Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan economy. Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse! It's not GLOBAL change, twit, it's LOCALIZED and I showed you why. that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures. Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with your radical worldview? Hardly. No, you moron, that's precisely what's at stake here. The truth about global warming hysteria can be summed up like this, "Capitalism is the problem and socialism is the solution." http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm I read your minotiry URL. You can't spell to save your life. It ignores No, it includes data from the very sources you use and other sources to show that the "problem" isn't as clear-cut as you suggest. |
|
|||
![]()
Beach Runner wrote:
Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance Which is paid for by Mittsubishi Oh, the horror! You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not anti-environment. http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/ Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market. However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles. Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we want and deserve. They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect. Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving it your own personal voice. Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've written. Here are some questions that may help you quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance: * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006? * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai vehicle? * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner? * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for their "virtually emission-free" ad? * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities? Tell me more Subject: Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai, (Edit Letter Below) I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments. I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. Bullshit. For example, the Auto Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000 false advertising complaints. None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them. Now the Alliance is purportedly focused on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution from autos among its top agenda items. Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn, give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American consumer. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, [Your name] Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders." BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below. usual suspect wrote: Beach Runner wrote: Yes I have, No, you ignored every ****ing point. You can't stick to one issue at a time, and I've patiently dealt with every lie you've posted. You said hybrids don't get better mileage, I showed you that you're full of shit. You whine that this is a vegan group and then post bullshit about global warming, and whine even louder when shown that your beliefs are predicated on the POLITICS of the issue rather than the SCIENCE of it. I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for by Mittsubisi and friends, Big ****ing deal. Auto Alliance aren't out to pollute. Go look at their website, dipshit. Take a look at what they have to say about "global climate change" and see if you can honestly object to what they have to say. Your activist form letter above is from a group which wants government to micromanage every ****ing aspect of our lives and thereby minimize the choices consumers have. Why do you support and work with authoritarian zealots? http://www.autoalliance.org/environm...balclimate.php and you ignore the responsible organizations such as MIT and NOA amongst other's. I don't ignore them; I disagree with conclusions reached from ambiguous results (at best) or results which don't even support the conclusions, predictions, or proposed solutions. You find a fringe scientist that supports your contention. Not fringe. As I've patiently shown your sorry ass too many times now, scientists are EVENLY DIVIDED over global warming. That's because the data are very unconvincing. The question then is, Why should we make radical changes if the "problem" isn't even clear-cut? Big deal. It's a big deal to advocate "radical change" as you have, you dumb ass. You need to be a lot more convincing than you have been by merely parroting activist groups or by simply saying: Global warming is real. That's an *unproven* assertion, and I've provided you with sufficient sources. http://www.commondreams.... From their "about us" page: Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for internet *activism*. IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. There's something wrong about advocating RADICAL CHANGE, you authoritarian zealot, without good reason. Ben Franklin would be considered a liberal for example. Not in today's terminology. Don't compare apples to oranges, dumb ass. When change is needed, then you need it. WTF?! You've yet to establish that ANY change is needed. Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be expressed? Look who's talking -- the bumbling twit who objects to anyone countering his distortions, lies, and vegan flim-flam. I've never told YOU to go away or to shut up; I've only told you to tell the truth or I'll correct you. And that's just what I've done, you benighted piece of shit. ... hat is correct. If IF the many models SOME models... that say global warming are correct, There's no indication that they are. and there is no doubt there are many models, SOME models. than radical chance is necessary. Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT necessary. If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people as yourself. Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate RADICAL change). We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. Neither can most studies. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html Etc. So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication Your Prozac should make you more coherent. Tell your doctor to increase your dosage. Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. You've still ignored No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview. That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed. |
|
|||
![]()
Beach Runner wrote:
... 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. |
|
|||
![]()
Beach Runner wrote:
... Yes, the VEGAN movement is a liberal movement by and large. It is entirely *RADICAL* -- far beyond being merely "liberal." |
|
|||
![]() Beach Runner wrote: usual suspect wrote: Beach Runner wrote: The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations. Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you. You only respond to the radical right stick your head up your ass and ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, people without agendas except science, Like the Republican Governor of Alaska. Another strawman. Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan economy. Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse! that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures. Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with your radical worldview? Hardly. http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm Oh, MR. Mann's opinion, not that he denies global warming, simply we should do more research is less valid than MIT or NOA? Hardly. I read your minotiry URL. It ignores the expert opinions of NOA and MIT and other expert organizations. What are their agendas? |
|
|||
![]() usual suspect wrote: Beach Runner wrote: ... 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. I'm not a Marxist, MANY believe we must take strong action against greenhouse gasses. I went to funded by corporate source web sites so what do you expect? They will support their corporate sponsors. I make a few typos. Insult me for it. NASA, NOA, MIT, the Union of Concerned Scientists. Go to http://www.climatehotmap.org/ which so clear early warning signs. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...ming/index.cfm well documented, or http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp http://www.envirolink.org/ Or the US government site, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Go to right wing sponsored by car companies with vested interests and you think they are right? Give me a break. Go join a radical right wing organization where you belong. |
|
|||
![]()
Beach Runner wrote:
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. 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? |
|
|||
![]()
Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups with
a stake in the ground, Like Mitsubishi, the very real number of independent scientists warn we must take strong action. That's Marxist? Hardly. We stand a strong change of terrible consequences. Many independent scientists, MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming. You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi and say big deal. I'd rather have independent sites. Insult me some more if it makes you happy. It doesn't change the reality. usual suspect wrote: Beach Runner wrote: 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. 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? |
|
|||
![]()
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. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901 You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi No, funded by a cross-section of car makers. 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. 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? |
|
|||
![]() usual suspect wrote: 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. 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. They are the car makers. Hardly free minded. 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. And you won't even consider them. You're closed minded. You're more influenced by groups funded by special interests. That's stupid. Chose INDEPENDENT groups. 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. In fact, the former Communist nations have horrendous polutions. But still the US produces the most greenhouse gasses. An anology is wrong. |
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
Global warming. | General Cooking | |||
Global Warming and what you can do to against it | General Cooking | |||
Global Warming | Vegan |