Global cooling... Better hurry N Pass Cap N TAX...

I wonder when he will notice that we gave up on reading this thread...

I can't remember the last time I clicked on any link he's posted.

StormyKnight wrote: I can't remember the last time I clicked on any link he's posted.

Same. I wonder if he actually thinks we read all of his blog posts?

I think you have confused "winning the debate" with "failing so hard that it is no longer fun for the rest of us."  Really, it's like playing dodgeball against Helen Keller.  Sure it may be fun to hurl balls at her for a few games, but after a while it's too easy and loses its appeal.

Wait, you actually think you won?

I honestly don't know what to say.

Eville wrote: Really, it's like playing dodgeball against Helen Keller.

Nah, it's more like playing dodge-ball with that kid who never admits you hit him and says that he is better than you because that one time he hit someone. Or that kid that yells "TIME OUT" right before you are about to catch him in a game of tag.

Nothing constructive will ever be done, because that kid always convinces himself that he is in the right, and that any objections are the result of others' jealousy of his superiority.

Now, FE, if you responded like you did to me with the definitions more often, that would be much more acceptable and much less annoying. Your constant appeals to "authority" vis-a-vis links (especially ones like freerepublic, FOX, etc.) get REALLY lame REALLY quick because you usually don't add anything, and we are left to refute your link. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that we get tired of actually typing and thinking before you get tired of copying and pasting and effectively posting "*belligerent and sarcastic line here demeaning opposing view*...yeah, right...[link]".

FreeEnterprise wrote: The logic was that there are lots of articles as well as the language from the UN that points out that the climate scientists and the UN want people to view man made global warming with the same fervor as religion.  Which they do by "making" it a religion....

That's not logic, that is statement of opinion. All of the articles you posted made the key assumption/insinuation/statement that "religion" means taking things STRICTLY on faith and made a veiled attempt to make it seem like that by "making environmentalism a religion" they mean replacing Christianity/more traditional theistic religions. That's not what Halle was explicitly advocating, nor does it seem like he was implicitly stating that should happen.

 

Edited by __sneaky__ - 15 December 2009 at 9:09am

That Article wrote: ]The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

So the Earth has still warmed approximately 3/4 of the amount "mainstream" scientists say it has? And that's different from global warming how?
All that means is that perhaps we have somewhat longer to deal with the problem than previously thought, not that there is no danger.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing Cap and Trade, but also don't kid yourself. You honestly think all the stupid crap we do to our atmosphere couldn't possibly be harming it?

Bunkered wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing Cap and Trade, but also don't kid yourself. You honestly think all the stupid crap we do to our atmosphere couldn't possibly be harming it?

I agree with these sentiments.

I'm not a huge fan of cap and trade for economic reasons.  It accomplishes what it's supposed to, maybe, if carried out right.  But nonetheless, we need to know more about how our world is changing, and hopefully this uproar will help continue research into it.

im hoping you will stop beating a dead horse and stop bumping this thread