How Liberals, the Green Movement, Abortion, Gay Marriage are all connected

[squealpiggy]

I stopped reading after his first line, such was the ridiculousness of his claim about the BBC

Any evidence for their position (no matter how fringe or biased) is genuine proof, any evidence against (of which there is a ton of legitimate examples) is evodence of the conspiracy. It's ludicrous.

The BBC article by the way is a report about some findings, it wasn't the findings themselves. I could find the paper but I'd be wasting my time as it would be roundly dismissed as... Malthusian.

[ILLuminato]

Absolutely. Suggesting that attempting to reduce our reliance on CO2 pollutants prior to having a workable alternative is babbling to the most insane degree.



Evolution would ultimately mean extinction should current trends persist without any action being taken. Evolution describes what is, not what ought to be.

So you're saying evolution happens for no reason.



You actually didn't give evidence. You said "Ice levels recently have risen in the Arctic". That is not evidence, that's a false assertion. Or "lie" to use the vernacular.

Yes, I did. Look it up. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...tic-ice-update You're the one lying because I gave a direct source to research before and now you're saying I didn't. Lie.



No, I don't think that is even close to what I am advocating. In fact the point that I was making was that carbon reduction programmes such as the Kyoto agreement are too expensive, and a waste of time to boot. In fact the point I was making was precisely the opposite of your evaluation of it. I'm proposing putting a fraction of the budget already earmarked for "green" initiatives into humanitarian initiatives instead, that way it costs less and more people benefit.

Again, you obviously don't understand the way the world works. Typical liberalism of course.

Checkmate.

[JACK D. RIPPER]

Oh yes, it's a sinister conspiracy of "Malthusians" isn't it? It always is with you idiots.



Truly pathetic. I deduce from this comment that you do not have any citations. If you don't want to engage in the debate then don't engage in it.



If I want a citation I should read a novel by Michael Crichton? Are you serious?

Interestingly enough Michael Crichton died recently. What killed him? Was it mutated gorillas? Was it evil nanorobots? Was it cloned dinosaurs? Nope. It was cancer. Ordinary, unmutated, untechnological throat cancer.



According to the data we have reached a concentration which is causing increased warming rates. Or is it only Malthusian warming so we can dismiss it?



List of things discovered by science in the last 150 years:

Steam propulsion
Internal combustion propulsion
Jet engines
Rocket engines
Evolution
Antiseptic
Antibiotics
Radio communication
Nuclear power
X rays
Modern Anaesthesiology
Computing
Ultrasound
Relativity
Quantum physics

You know I'm going to stop there, but I could go on and on. The age of enlightenment was around 160 years ago and since then we have made almost all of our scientific discoveries. Suggesting that a field of science can be dismissed becasue it is only studied in our most scientifically advanced age is absurd, like the rest of your non-arguments



Why don't you call me a "sheeple" too? I can't stand adolescents who think they have all the answers.



And I can tell you are an adolescent because you name-drop obscure groups in an attempt to appear better read than adults, when in fact you come across as unjustifiably arrogant and in possession of rather shallow understanding.



Ah yes, the Bilderberg Group, the most famous secret organisation since the Knights Templar.



OK now I googled this particular quote and interestingly enough it is quoted exclusively on websites which promote either right-wing conservative talking points or new world order type conspiracy theories.

Perhaps you could provide an author and a title from the "book" you suggested it was taken from.

First off the stuff in bold shows you clearly dont understand anything about climate. None of the stuff in that list has anything to do w/ what were talking about, its absolutely irrelevant yet you throw it in to show me what exactly? That we now have radio's in our cars?

Climate studies cannot be reliably assessed in such a short time period. In order to gauge weather patterns accurately the span of time covered needs to be much longer, as in thousands of years. No reliable patterns emerge over 100 years. But I dont wanna repeat myself, so believe what you want.

State of Fear is based on factual events and the science in it is legit. He changes the names of the characters and thus its "fiction".
You are so afraid of the truth that you rely on the most primitive form of ridicule to insulate yourself. Thats fine.
I'm not sure you read my post because I clearly gave the title of the book by the Club of Rome founders.
Its not my fault you dont know what Bilderberg is or what they do. But being a smug prick and laughing about it wont change anything other than make you look stupider.
The First Global Revolution, google it. I can give you an entire reading list but I doubt you'll take it. It seems you are more content living in abject ignorance and ridiculing people whom you disagree with.
You are the modern equivalent of a "flat earther" lol.

And no I dont owe you citations. You're not my professor. Citing all this would take hours, I'm not here for that. If you're curious, use google. Its a library at your fingertips.
I'm not your little research servant. Look it up yourself you old fool.

[P4P Opinion]

Sigh, I can't believe I'm taking the time to argue with an Alt, but just in case some of the true idiots take his words to heart, I will. Squeal will be able to do this much better than I, but he hasn't replied yet.

Absolutely. Suggesting that attempting to reduce our reliance on CO2 pollutants prior to having a workable alternative is babbling to the most insane degree.

Evolution would ultimately mean extinction should current trends persist without any action being taken. Evolution describes what is, not what ought to be.

So you're saying evolution happens for no reason.

No, don't presume anyone means anything other than what they say. That way, you get to avoid embarrassing retractions, or in your case, denials. Perhaps you get confused by the scientific language Squeal and co use, so I'll put it in very basic language for you: Evolution happens because species need to find new or better ways to survive - this doesn't mean however that it is perfect. There are countless examples of species who have evolved, but have later died out. Species either evolve to survive, or they go extinct. So, evolution does happen for a reason and one reason only; survival. This doesn't mean however, that species necessarily survive.

You actually didn't give evidence. You said "Ice levels recently have risen in the Arctic". That is not evidence, that's a false assertion. Or "lie" to use the vernacular.

Yes, I did. Look it up. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...tic-ice-update You're the one lying because I gave a direct source to research before and now you're saying I didn't. Lie.

I have no idea whether you have given evidence before or not, but the evidence you have given dramatically contradicts most other sources on the matter. If you search hard enough, you will find someone who disagrees.

No, I don't think that is even close to what I am advocating. In fact the point that I was making was that carbon reduction programmes such as the Kyoto agreement are too expensive, and a waste of time to boot. In fact the point I was making was precisely the opposite of your evaluation of it. I'm proposing putting a fraction of the budget already earmarked for "green" initiatives into humanitarian initiatives instead, that way it costs less and more people benefit.

Again, you obviously don't understand the way the world works. Typical liberalism of course.

What is that supposed to mean? All it looks like is that you can't think of a response, so you've retreated to your traditional non-sensical babbling.

Checkmate.

Imagine Jeff Lacy claiming victory after fighting Joe Calzaghe and you're somewhere close to how deluded you are.

[squealpiggy]

So you're saying evolution happens for no reason.

I don't think I have ever suggested that evolution has a purpose.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...tic-ice-update

That's a pretty lousy source. Here is another story from this great source of "news".

http://newsbusters.org/polls/whats-r...on-story-30230

For a site which purports to dispel bias in the news that's a pretty biased poll.

Please provide a citation which is not from a conservative blog.

Again, you obviously don't understand the way the world works. Typical liberalism of course.

Er... What exactly do you mean? Do you think that there is something wrong with pragmatism? Or are you just automatically gainsaying every comment I make? It would be a fairly typical right wing tactic.

Obama: I'm going to release torture pictures...
The Right: AAARGGH! YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF AMERICA! YOU CANNOT RELEASE THOSE PICTURES YOU TERRORIST!
Obama: You know something, you have a point. OK we won't release them.
The Right: AAAARGH! YOU ARE A FLIP FLOPPER! AAAARGH!

Here's another example:

The Right: AAAAARGH! AMERICA SHOULD EXERCISE DIPLOMACY AT GUNPOINT! AAAARGH! NO NEGOTIATING!
Obama: Hey, those Somalians have kidnapped our guys! I'm sending the SEALS.
The Right: AAAARGH! YOU JUST KILLED A SOMALI TEENAGER! AAARGH! YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM! AAAAARGH!

You're a jackass know-nothing. The end.

[squealpiggy]

First off the stuff in bold shows you clearly dont understand anything about climate. None of the stuff in that list has anything to do w/ what were talking about, its absolutely irrelevant yet you throw it in to show me what exactly? That we now have radio's in our cars?

You said that climatology is irrelevant because the field is less than 150 years old. I gave you a list of other areas of science and technology which are less that 150 years old.

Climate studies cannot be reliably assessed in such a short time period. In order to gauge weather patterns accurately the span of time covered needs to be much longer, as in thousands of years.

Earlier on you cited a study which suggested that climate change was caused by sunspots, and to support this you cited warming in the middle ages ~1000 years ago. So this begs a question: Can we determine the temperature from 1000 years ago or not? You can't have it both ways.

State of Fear is based on factual events and the science in it is legit.

It uses footnotes to lend itself an air of scientific legitimacy in the same way that Dan Brown's books use endnotes and forewords to imply they are historically accurate. The science in his book is no more legitimate than the use of frog DNA in Jurassic Park. Why is Michael Crichton such a luddite anyway?

I'm not sure you read my post because I clearly gave the title of the book by the Club of Rome founders.

Then why not just repeat the title of the book and the author? Because you don't know it!

being a smug prick and laughing about it wont change anything other than make you look stupider.

That is excellent advice. LOOK IT UP!

The First Global Revolution, google it.

Oops! Synopsis, or fail.

You are the modern equivalent of a "flat earther" lol.

Irony.

And no I dont owe you citations. You're not my professor.

Do you want to be taken seriously or not? Well actually the answer to that is obvious.

[Charles Darwin]

slɐɹǝqıl ʎddıɥ pǝɹıɐɥ ƃuol uıʞɔnɟ

[squealpiggy]

slɐɹǝqıl ʎddıɥ pǝɹıɐɥ ƃuol uıʞɔnɟ

I can't stand hippies either. My views are centrist meaning that the right wing nutjobs call me a socialist and the left win nutjobs call me a capitalist/fascist.

[BmoreBrawler]

I can't stand hippies either. My views are centrist meaning that the right wing nutjobs call me a socialist and the left win nutjobs call me a capitalist/fascist.

middle of the road policy leads to socialism

http://mises.org/story/2370

[squealpiggy]

middle of the road policy leads to socialism

http://mises.org/story/2370

No it doesn't.