Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Ah, the Bobsey Twins of disinformation are up to their antics once again. How quaint.

massegetto, even when you attempt to threaten me you look foolish and cannot even quote me correctly. My remark towards you was the following.

kuvasz wrote:

Were you a shoe, your sole would be smeared with smelly dog excrement.

yet you said I wrote this.

BernardR wrote:

"If you were a shoe you would be smeared with smelly dog excrement"

(And yet not even a nod to the alliteration?)

Writing a lot of words as you so often do does not mean you are smart. Your attempts at impressing folks around here with your intellect have failed miserably. Your postings are clownish and pompous buffoonery to most of us (except to your admirer, Okie)

and Okie, poor dear, I know that intelligent cogitation is not really your strong suit nor are the laws of the land your study, but freedom of speech applies to the government regulation of it towards citizens. This web site is not the government and in private matters there is no right of speech. Try cursing out your boss and see what happens to you. In case you did not know, the poster now called Bernard has been repeatedly banished from this web site for the same provocative crap he has pulled over the past several months. If anything the owners and moderators of this site have been extremely liberal to allow his return without kicking him back off. He has boasted repeatedly of having several email accounts that allow him to hide his IP from the software that prevents such return. If you want to start demanding that the rules be applied evenly you ought to stick up for the rules for denying this person continual access to the site once he is banned from it. But of course, when has intellectual consistency ever been your style?

Considering that I have responded more than anyone on-site with answers to his questions and provided detailed analyses to counter the mendacious posts he has thrown up your remarks are patently and verifiably false. But, you knew that already didn't you?

Also, you should note as to my suggestion for the poor man to kill himself, as the true progressive I am I did offer him a choice. And isn't choice good, as you conservatives would say?

And while others might state verbally that the both of you post things that would lead them to believe that you are a brace of unctuous a$$holes, I would not; although it would take considerable physical restraint not to nod my head in agreement of such a remark.

Hugs and kisses, boys.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie,

Perhaps you didn't realize it but A2K isn't the government. It is a private enterprise. Are you advocating the private enterprises should be forced to serve everyone? You signed a contract when you created your name on this website. Failure to live up to that contract by repeated postings (spam) or harrassment of other members is reason for banishment.

Bernard treads the line on both counts and has repeatedly crossed over it.

I am not defending everything Bernard says or does. I simply made an observation that I've seen others cross the line just as bad or worse, with no threat of being banished. I fully realize A2K isn't the government, but hey, I thought such a forum would like to hear all sides of the political spectrum. My point was if kuvasz thinks a forum should be run by kicking off his opponents, then if he were in government, he probably would like to do the same. Suggesting Bernard go kill himself does not come from a very nice person. Just my opinion, but I don't mingle with people that habitually go around telling people that, and I would think a forum like this would regard that as going over the edge. So I defended Bernard.

Since I've been on this forum, I've encountered a few thoughtful people that can offer reasoned arguments, but gee, I have been absolutely astonished at the level of hatred, vitriol, and snobbish attitude portrayed here.

I think I am coming to the conclusion that I heard Rush express the other day. Liberalism is on the same level as religion. It trumps everything else in a liberal's life, and any attempt to reason with one is hopeless.

I think Bernard would do himself well by eliminating duplicate posts, and shortening his arguments to a few key points. Otherwise, I think he presents interesting data that deserves debate rather than dismissing it out of hand and name calling.

The main problem I see here is an unwillingness of some to concede any point whatsoever to opposing arguments that deserve credibility and consideration.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Ah, the Bobsey Twins of disinformation are up to their antics once again. How quaint.

In your pompous opinion of course.

kuvasz, I have no clue about all that Bernard believes, but I do find his posts far more informative, thoughtful, and educated than the majority of posters here. His main mistake is to repeat the posts numerous times and perhaps add too much sarcasm. I am not here to defend everthing Bernard says or does.

kuvasz, you don't exactly come across as a real nice person when you suggest someone go kill himself. You have lowered yourself with your demeanor and your condescending comments. Bernard excells at sarcasm, but you can give him a good contest in that department as well.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
Ah, the Bobsey Twins of disinformation are up to their antics once again. How quaint.

In your pompous opinion of course.

kuvasz, I have no clue about all that Bernard believes, but I do find his posts far more informative, thoughtful, and educated than the majority of posters here. His main mistake is to repeat the posts numerous times and perhaps add too much sarcasm. I am not here to defend everthing Bernard says or does.

kuvasz, you don't exactly come across as a real nice person when you suggest someone go kill himself. You have lowered yourself with your demeanor and your condescending comments. Bernard excells at sarcasm, but you can give him a good contest in that department as well.

Tut, tut young fellow, you forgot to mention my stunning good looks.

Here, pull my tentacle.

btw: the main issue with massegetto is that he is back here at all after being banned from the site repeatedly. and no, massegetto does not do sarcasm well; for that one requires a modicum of wit and I am afraid the dear boy's posts have been witless.

And for your edification, what I do is called irony, not sarcasm.

0 Replies

kuvie -- Bernie/Massa generally ends up resorting to a crude manner of expression. On another thread, he decided it would be clever to replace the word "Faces" in a movie title with "feces."

He has also worked hard to create a new personality here, defending the notion that BernardR is not massagatto. Remarkably, no one was fooled.

0 Replies

Okie_ I said it all-

GEE, I DON'T THINK MR. KUVASZ LIKES ME!!!!

I WONDER WHY?

I REALLY DON'T THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING HE WROTE.

I THINK HE IS REALLY UPSET SINCE I PUNCTURED THE GLOBAL WARMING BALLOON.

What I did to Mr. Kuvasz and Mr. Parados is to show them that they could not prove that Global Warming would destroy our country. They have obviously never been in a court room, Okie, where you need to prove serious claims, such as the claim that our country will soon be destroyed, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

They can continue to rant and rave, Okie, but I will tell you that little or nothing need be done now. If, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes president in 2009, then the global warmists may win the battle, but they won't win it now. Hillary or Gore or whoever, can run down the American Economy so that we tumble into a deep 1929 type recession. And that will be their problem to handle.

But somehow, if Hillary is President, I think she will be too smart to swallow the GlobalWarming medicine completely.

We shall see. But in the meanwhile Okie, Mr. Kuvasz and Mr. Parados have been rendered impotent!!!

0 Replies

Ah yes. That shadow of a doubt idea.

Lets start with a simple proof here that either Kuvasz or Parados said anything even close to "the claim that our country will soon be destroyed,"

Failure to provide such evidence proves you are arguing a strawman again Bernard. As you have stated on so many occasions, this post stands unless rebutted with linked facts.

(Your arguments are riddled with logic errors Bernard.)

0 Replies

You know Parados, I cannot seem to find any comment I made about supporting the destruction of the US economy In fact, I cannot seem to find anywhere where I promoted any such envirornmental actions. I certainly asked for any such proof to be presented on repeated occasions yet it wasn't.

Have you?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

GEE, I DON'T THINK MR. KUVASZ LIKES ME!!!!

I WONDER WHY?
!

Could it be that he has taste?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

You know Parados, I cannot seem to find any comment I made about supporting the destruction of the US economy In fact, I cannot seem to find anywhere where I promoted any such envirornmental actions. I certainly asked for any such proof to be presented on repeated occasions yet it wasn't.

Have you?

Then what is this argument about? You global warmers have argued for the 2 and 2. Bernard simply added them together for you to get 4, since you don't seem to grasp the result of your own arguments.

If global warming is at the tipping point as Al Gore has asserted, and man produced CO2 is the culprit as has been asserted here, then fairly drastic action to reduce CO2 production almost completely would be required to reverse the trend before wholesale climatic destruction descends upon us all. Since no viable alternative means exists of producing the energy required to fuel the economy at approximately current levels, simple math tells us the only way to solve the problem is to park our cars and let the economy go south in a big way.

0 Replies

It would be my not so humble opinion that Possum R Fartbubble doesn't have the intellectual where-with-all to fart in a direction away from his brain let alone add 2 and 2.

0 Replies

dyslexia, you continue to show your Wolf Holish intellectual superiority in such a magnificant way. Is that how you and your Wolf Hole neighbors communicate with each other every day?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
You know Parados, I cannot seem to find any comment I made about supporting the destruction of the US economy In fact, I cannot seem to find anywhere where I promoted any such envirornmental actions. I certainly asked for any such proof to be presented on repeated occasions yet it wasn't.

Have you?

Then what is this argument about? You global warmers have argued for the 2 and 2. Bernard simply added them together for you to get 4, since you don't seem to grasp the result of your own arguments.

If global warming is at the tipping point as Al Gore has asserted, and man produced CO2 is the culprit as has been asserted here, then fairly drastic action to reduce CO2 production almost completely would be required to reverse the trend before wholesale climatic destruction descends upon us all. Since no viable alternative means exists of producing the energy required to fuel the economy at approximately current levels, simple math tells us the only way to solve the problem is to park our cars and let the economy go south in a big way.

Young man, are you a complete twit? You are equating here two disparate things. I have been accused of promoting the destruction of the US economy simple because I have presented evidence that global warming is occuring. Not only is that incorrect and without substantiation, but it is even besides the point of the thread's topic vis-a-vis that the affect of the environment due to global warming would affect the economy and nation akin to acts of terrorism. In the former case a national response to global warming was built up as a strawman argument whose affect would ruin the economy, in the latter case it was the affect of the warming itself would do the same.

They are not the same thing. In one case you are complaining that the the medicine makes you sick, in the other case you deny that the disease kills you.

yoiur pathetic posturing (of your typical building of a strawman argument) of your adversary's position is that since we cannot replace fossil fuel today with alternative and non-greenhouse fuel systems and maintain current energy usage that we must instead cease or decrease economic activity. No one has said that but you and your idiot friend and both of you have failed to substantiate it with actual facts and have used as a basis for it opinion and conjecture instead.

You have stretched statements of fact concerning the validity of climate change into an attack on any response to it.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

They are not the same thing. In one case you are complaining that the the medicine makes you sick, in the other case you deny that the disease kills you.

You summed it up kuvasz. Yes the medicine makes us sick. Medicine for a disease that is run of the mill. You don't take chemotherapy for a common cold.

Your side believes it is cancer, and given the seriousness you state, the chemotherapy required to properly fight the cancer will close to kill us. In short, your understanding of the disease is wrong, and your treatment is therefore also wrong. The sad part is that even if your assessment of the disease was correct, it is demonstrably obvious that your own prescribed treatment does not work. So you are wrong twice.

0 Replies

Okie- Dopn't be taken in by blah-blah-blah

Look at facts:

l. Mr. Parados and Mr. Kuvasz were UNABLE to defend their thesis concerning Global Warming. They are the proponents and they were not able to answer numerous questions.

2. Read Mr. Kuvasz' post carefully. It is just blah-blah-blah. He proves nothing. He and Mr. Parados proceed from what they think is the moral high ground defending our country and the world from catastrophe.
They remind me of the idiot, Paul Ehrlich, who, claimed in his book. "The Population Bomb" ( 1968) that

quote

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970's the world will undergo famines- HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked on now"

and. in an article for Earth Day in 1970, Ehrlich outlined a horrific scenario in which 65( sixty five) MILLION Americans and 4 other Billion people would die of starvation in the "Great Die off "between 1980 and 1989.

Ehrlich--the idiot from Stanford was U N A B L E to predict that Economic Growth and Steep declines in fertility rates went hand in hand. The Green Revolution took place and gave people more food, more nourishing food in just a couple of decades.

3. Mr. Kuvasz and Mr. Parados do not know what will happen in the near future and in fifty years. They cannot predict.

But, why, then, Okie, are they so adamant about things they cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt?

The brilliant Irving Kristol has given us the answer. An answer which perfectly categorizes both Mr. Kuvasz and Mr> Parados.

from "Neoconservatism" by Irving Kristol--P. 97

quote

"But it turns out that your zealous environmentalists do not want to be shown anything of the sort( that economic analysis can show them different ways with different costs and benefits of getting varying degrees of clean air or clean water) They are NOT really interested in clean air or clean water at all. What does interest them is modern industrial society and modern technological civilization, toward which they have profound hostile sentiments. When they protest the" quality of life " in this society and this civilization, they are protesting against nothing so trivial as air or water pollution, Rather they are at bottom rejecting a liberal civilization which is given shape through the interaction of a countless sum of individual preferences. Since they do not LIKE the shpe of that civilization, they are moved to challenge--however indirectly or slyly--the process that produces this shape. What environmentalists want is very simple. They want to create an "environment" which pleases them, and this "environment" will be a societiy where the rulers will not want to "think economically" and the ruled will not be permitted to do so."

end of quote

Can there be any doubt, Okie, that if you go back to read the output of Parados and Kuvasz, that they lean to the far socialistic left?

That falls right in line with the description of Irving Kristol above for "enviromentalists"

Never forget, Okie, the so called science comes second- Ideology for the left always comes first!!!

0 Replies

Parados wrote:

okie,

Perhaps you didn't realize it but A2K isn't the government. It is a private enterprise. Are you advocating the private enterprises should be forced to serve everyone? You signed a contract when you created your name on this website. Failure to live up to that contract by repeated postings (spam) or harrassment of other members is reason for banishment.

Bernard treads the line on both counts and has repeatedly crossed over it.

************************************************************'

The wailings of a LOSER who had his clock cleaned!!!

spam? Do you know what Spam is? Define it. If you can't define it SPECIFICALLY then you must again be classified as a LOSER.

Harrassment of other members/

Define it. Do you mean name calling? Using terms like "ass" or "moron" or "sh.t"? You will never find that in my posts. You must be thinking of Frank Apisa or Setanta.

Do you mean suggesting that people kill themselves? You will never find that in my posts. You must be thinking of Kuvasz.

I know what you mean by harrassment, Parados.
Harrassment for you is when someone lays down references and evidence to show that you are mistaken. That is what you mean by "harrassment".

I would suggest that you do more reading. Then you might be ready for real debate. As of this moment, you will be "harassed" continually since your arguments are filled with ignorance!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
They are not the same thing. In one case you are complaining that the the medicine makes you sick, in the other case you deny that the disease kills you.

You summed it up kuvasz. Yes the medicine makes us sick. Medicine for a disease that is run of the mill. You don't take chemotherapy for a common cold.

Your side believes it is cancer, and given the seriousness you state, the chemotherapy required to properly fight the cancer will close to kill us. In short, your understanding of the disease is wrong, and your treatment is therefore also wrong. The sad part is that even if your assessment of the disease was correct, it is demonstrably obvious that your own prescribed treatment does not work. So you are wrong twice.

Of course I summed it up. I am capable of cutting through your bull$hit. But, no "my" side doesn't "believe," it has established data to back up its positions for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and concomitent rise world-wide in temperatures on land, sea, and air. The disease can not be accounted for by traditional natural causes. Even the infamous Dr. Lomborg agrees with this assessment.

The disease is the climate change and the assessment, the diagnosis is correct. And I would point out to you and others that you have not ever been able to show any evidence where I (and Parados) personally prescribed any of the medicines you claimed we did. My brook here has been solely to counter the mouth breathers who deny the science of climate change for purely personal political reasons.

If you are the honest man you presume to be, and have any moral, ethical, or intellectual integrity then when you post in response to me here, quote me where I have listed the medicine to alleviate the disease. If not, here as elsewhere you are showing yourself as simply a liar or whacko like massegetto and you are just making up $hit about me so as to win an imaginary argument you have made with yourself.

I have asked a dozen times for proof to claims you and massegetto have made about me seeking or promoting the destruction of the US economy by placing severe restrictions on CO2 emissons. Instead of validating your position by positng any facts to support your claims, all you and massegetto have done is hide your face and engage in a hoary tap dance away from admitting you are both bold-faced liars.

0 Replies

You proved nothing _ Kuvasz.

If you think you did, go back to my challenges to Parados and begin with the first one. If you have trouble I will list them for you. If you do, you will use your usual technique of AVOIDING evidence which you cannot handle. If you do, you will SKIP over some of the questions and comments I laid out for Parados.

I welcome your challenge. I am ready for you but please show some integrity and ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS--DO NOT SLIP AND SLIDE AND TEMPORIZE AND OBFUSCATE!!!!

I will state a key point again--I will not accept any point which is not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt!!!!
'
If fifty five steel mills and factories must be shut down there must be EVIDENCE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT!!!!

0 Replies

Kuvasz-ever sneakily, wrote:

Of course I summed it up. I am capable of cutting through your bull$hit. But, no "my" side doesn't "believe," it has established data to back up its positions for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and concomitent rise world-wide in temperatures on land, sea, and air. The disease can not be accounted for by traditional natural causes. Even the infamous Dr. Lomborg agrees with this assessment.

***********************

Really?? What disease are you talking about? How many degrees of fever does the patient have? Who says so? How was it measured? Could his fever be caused by something else? It can't be accounted for by traditional natural causes? Not even part of it? Prove it...You can't prove that not even PART of the fever is caused by traditional natural causes>

And the infamous Dr. Lomborg does not agree with the asessment that a RISE( again not measured except in forty different scenarios-FORTY) in C02 must result in any real action IMMEDIATELY.

AND IF KUVASZ WERE NOT SO DISHONEST, HE WOULD SAY SO--or perhaps he did not read what Dr. Lomborg said--

quote_

"We should NOT spend VAST AMOUNTS of money to CUT A TINY SLICE of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a POOR USE OF RESOURCES"

You moan and groan and call names, Kuvasz..Now I will do the same..You are dishonest!!!!!
'
Read what Dr.Lomborg said--I POSTED IT OFTEN ENOUGH!!!

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Of course I summed it up. I am capable of cutting through your bull$hit. But, no "my" side doesn't "believe," it has established data to back up its positions for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and concomitent rise world-wide in temperatures on land, sea, and air. The disease can not be accounted for by traditional natural causes. Even the infamous Dr. Lomborg agrees with this assessment.

Quote:

Global warming, though its size and future projections are rather unrealistically pessimistic, is almost certainly taking place

Bjorn Lomborg, Chapter 1, page 2, "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

I do not note the presence or use of any qualifiers in my statement that actually were used by others when calling my remarks by Lomborg dishonest.

You see, I did not say what the following implied of my remarks. I stated that Lomborg agreed with the assessment that global warming was occurring.

Quote:

Dr. Lomborg does not agree with the asessment that a RISE( again not measured except in forty different scenarios-FORTY) in C02 must result in any real action IMMEDIATELY.

And accusations of me being dishonest for making statements I did not make indicate yet another made-up retarded strawman argument from the marginally sane.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know