(07-07-2014 11:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:18 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:04 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Until a viable alternative is developed and as readily available as oil then were stuck with oil.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

ignoring the parallels of 'until' and 'when' are mind numbingly descriptive of a feeble mind,,,,,and yeah, you won't get it....

You don't read your own posts, do you?

nope.....I write 'em....

piss poorly at that.

...from the "I'm not going to insult...too easy" guy....

do you really think I give two fks what you think?

YOU HAVE NO CLUE MAN.....that takes you off my radar....you shouldn't care what I say either.....but ya just can't stand it, can you? is pathetic......

(07-07-2014 05:58 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 11:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:18 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  ignoring the parallels of 'until' and 'when' are mind numbingly descriptive of a feeble mind,,,,,and yeah, you won't get it....

You don't read your own posts, do you?

nope.....I write 'em....

piss poorly at that.

...from the "I'm not going to insult...too easy" guy....

do you really think I give two fks what you think?

YOU HAVE NO CLUE MAN.....that takes you off my radar....you shouldn't care what I say either.....but ya just can't stand it, can you? is pathetic......

Says the fool who can't seem to stop humpin my leg...


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

(07-07-2014 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 11:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:04 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Nobody comes out and says it directly - but then they talk about eliminating subsidies on alternative energies, without even mentioning the tax breaks that oil companies get. And they go on and on about how other energy sources just aren't competitive, even though the cost of maintaining a navy in the middle east (and even more, fighting wars over there) mostly to assure the flow of oil is not included in the price of oil. And maintaining the artificially low cost of oil is going to definitely make the other sources look like they have no chance and aren't worth it. So we don't put much money in it and the technology doesn't advance very fast. And then there's the "drill, drill, drill" even though much of the oil now is either dirtier or is in deep water which is more precarious from a safety standpoint.

Oh yea, then there's the comments about excessive regulations in the industry and slow permitting (required at least in part to assure we aren't going to have several hundred million MORE gallons of oil washing up on beaches and destroying other industries and livelihoods.)

Until a viable alternative is developed and as readily available as oil then were stuck with oil.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

ignoring the parallels of 'until' and 'when' are mind numbingly descriptive of a feeble mind,,,,,and yeah, you won't get it....

I'm not ignoring anything but you appear to be ignoring the reality of present day circumstances.

present day solutions that will create an entire different economic global power for the future or present day 'we are just going to sit around and camp on the the, "I can't live w/o oil and getting buttfuxxored by the oil demons is okay." camp'?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer.....

Reading comprehension just isn't your forte I see.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

(07-06-2014 06:43 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  It amazes me that seemingly intelligent people eat the whole anthropogenic global war...er, climate change crap up as gospel. I certainly have no ability to determine the validity of it for myself and neither do they, yet they believe anything that comes out in support of this new religion.

(07-07-2014 06:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 11:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:04 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Until a viable alternative is developed and as readily available as oil then were stuck with oil.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

ignoring the parallels of 'until' and 'when' are mind numbingly descriptive of a feeble mind,,,,,and yeah, you won't get it....

I'm not ignoring anything but you appear to be ignoring the reality of present day circumstances.

present day solutions that will create an entire different economic global power for the future or present day 'we are just going to sit around and camp on the the, "I can't live w/o oil and getting buttfuxxored by the oil demons is okay." camp'?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer.....

Reading comprehension just isn't your forte I see.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

I'll defer to ecumbh and party likes it's 1999.....

(07-06-2014 10:04 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:18 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 05:56 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:25 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Yeah, I believe you. Just because you say it's so. Much like you believe that it's real and arrogantly think that if we, as a country, don't do something about it our
entire species will go the way of the dinosaur. Just because you say so based on what you believe is the truth despite legitimate questions about that truth.

I won't swap insults with you because it would be too easy.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

I definitely avoided sad fkrs like you.....

I never said the 'why' that is currently being touted is correct.....never have....

I only view data and move forward....

nobody knows conclusively why....that won't be known until long after it happens....which will be way too late in the game....

to ignore the want of developing alternative forms of energy and the residual impact of that economic boon is equally ignorant ignorance from the ignoramuses.....did I get enough ign- words in there for ya?

Who suggested that we not develop alternatives or that we should not be good stewards of our environment? If all you can do is repeat stale talking points you sure can't be taken seriously.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

Nobody comes out and says it directly - but then they talk about eliminating subsidies on alternative energies, without even mentioning the tax breaks that oil companies get. And they go on and on about how other energy sources just aren't competitive, even though the cost of maintaining a navy in the middle east (and even more, fighting wars over there) mostly to assure the flow of oil is not included in the price of oil. And maintaining the artificially low cost of oil is going to definitely make the other sources look like they have no chance and aren't worth it. So we don't put much money in it and the technology doesn't advance very fast. And then there's the "drill, drill, drill" even though much of the oil now is either dirtier or is in deep water which is more precarious from a safety standpoint.

Oh yea, then there's the comments about excessive regulations in the industry and slow permitting (required at least in part to assure we aren't going to have several hundred million MORE gallons of oil washing up on beaches and destroying other industries and livelihoods.)

Until a viable alternative is developed and as readily available as oil then were stuck with oil.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

What I'm saying though as that nothing will ever become viable as long as oil is underpriced. How many people really were made whole by BP after the oil spill? How long did it take Exxon to pay for their spill, if they ever really did? I'm also concerned that these companies get to drill on the land that belongs to the public. Where's my percentage of the profit? It's like back in the day when the government gave the railroads free land.

(07-07-2014 12:15 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 03:48 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 03:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 03:01 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  There wasn't scientific consensus on gravity either. Wow, you guys just eat this bullsh!t up!!! It is so funny how brainwashed the paranoid mafia is on this board...kind of sad too

When global warming gets the same consensus as gravity does today that will be the day I start believing in it.

gravity doesn't need politicians and paid-off academics to constantly defend it. when was the last time a seedy politician felt like he had to say something like, "gravity is settled science"?

no one has to worry about gravity. it bears up to scrutiny on its own. gravity doesn't need someone to spin it's data for it.

But... gravity isn't settled science. We don't really understand it, we just know that it's happening.

Not only that but we've had to invent dark matter, which we are unable to see or otherwise detect, to account for motions that our current theory of gravity doesn't explain.

(07-07-2014 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 06:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 11:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  ignoring the parallels of 'until' and 'when' are mind numbingly descriptive of a feeble mind,,,,,and yeah, you won't get it....

I'm not ignoring anything but you appear to be ignoring the reality of present day circumstances.

present day solutions that will create an entire different economic global power for the future or present day 'we are just going to sit around and camp on the the, "I can't live w/o oil and getting buttfuxxored by the oil demons is okay." camp'?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer.....

Reading comprehension just isn't your forte I see.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

I'll defer to ecumbh and party likes it's 1999.....

I noticed you say nothing of the pics I posted and only crack a joke, a weak one at that.

Still waiting for a link to the actual article, rather than a cherry-picked description of it.

(07-07-2014 09:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Still waiting for a link to the actual article, rather than a cherry-picked description of it.

It's linked in the OP's article but you'll have to pay to read it.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8...o1874.html

(07-07-2014 09:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 06:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 11:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I'm not ignoring anything but you appear to be ignoring the reality of present day circumstances.

present day solutions that will create an entire different economic global power for the future or present day 'we are just going to sit around and camp on the the, "I can't live w/o oil and getting buttfuxxored by the oil demons is okay." camp'?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer.....

Reading comprehension just isn't your forte I see.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

I'll defer to ecumbh and party likes it's 1999.....

I noticed you say nothing of the pics I posted and only crack a joke, a weak one at that.

Nothing against you, but I don't trust the climate alarmists, they've already proven that they'll fudge data in order to make a point.

(07-07-2014 09:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Still waiting for a link to the actual article, rather than a cherry-picked description of it.

It's linked in the OP's article but you'll have to pay to read it.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8...o1874.html

Thanks. Not willing to pay that much for it. It looks like it's just saying that we can't tell if we can extrapolate the extra 43 cm of sea level rise over and above the linear rise which still appears to be expected.

(07-07-2014 09:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 06:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  present day solutions that will create an entire different economic global power for the future or present day 'we are just going to sit around and camp on the the, "I can't live w/o oil and getting buttfuxxored by the oil demons is okay." camp'?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer.....

Reading comprehension just isn't your forte I see.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

I'll defer to ecumbh and party likes it's 1999.....

I noticed you say nothing of the pics I posted and only crack a joke, a weak one at that.

Nothing against you, but I don't trust the climate alarmists, they've already proven that they'll fudge data in order to make a point.

And, other ignore real evidence and gloss right over like it is not there. Nothing I've posted is untrue or fudged. You can see in pictures. But, keep believe we zero impact on the environment. Just like the belief we could dump pollution into our rivers without any harm. Should I pull the new reports from Ohio in the 1950's and 60's with rivers so polluted they could and would catch fire? Or the North Carolina Oyster industry near collapse in the 80's because the Oyster nearly died off pollution? Should post picture of LA cover in smog or Chinese cities cover in smog so thick you can't see 25 feet in front of you? Are really go to tell that doesn't affect the environment?

We can debate how much affect there is, but come on, how much evidence do need?

(07-07-2014 10:52 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 06:26 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Reading comprehension just isn't your forte I see.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

I'll defer to ecumbh and party likes it's 1999.....

I noticed you say nothing of the pics I posted and only crack a joke, a weak one at that.

Nothing against you, but I don't trust the climate alarmists, they've already proven that they'll fudge data in order to make a point.

And, other ignore real evidence and gloss right over like it is not there. Nothing I've posted is untrue or fudged. You can see in pictures. But, keep believe we zero impact on the environment. Just like the belief we could dump pollution into our rivers without any harm. Should I pull the new reports from Ohio in the 1950's and 60's with rivers so polluted they could and would catch fire? Or the North Carolina Oyster industry near collapse in the 80's because the Oyster nearly died off pollution? Should post picture of LA cover in smog or Chinese cities cover in smog so thick you can't see 25 feet in front of you? Are really go to tell that doesn't affect the environment?

We can debate how much affect there is, but come on, how much evidence do need?

Pollution does not equate to global warming. We've had volcanoes and hundreds of atom bombs detonated and the planet suffered no long term harm. But if you believe humans are responsible for the global warming that hasn't existed for the last 16 years then you certainly can't be looking at America because we've reduced our pollution to levels that are far less than decades ago. Take the US out of the equation and you're still looking at China, India, Mexico, etc. now what?

As has been said by many people, many times - thousands of years ago the USA was covered in ice and your Hummer and my TV set didn't melt it.

(07-07-2014 11:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 10:52 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I'll defer to ecumbh and party likes it's 1999.....

I noticed you say nothing of the pics I posted and only crack a joke, a weak one at that.

Nothing against you, but I don't trust the climate alarmists, they've already proven that they'll fudge data in order to make a point.

And, other ignore real evidence and gloss right over like it is not there. Nothing I've posted is untrue or fudged. You can see in pictures. But, keep believe we zero impact on the environment. Just like the belief we could dump pollution into our rivers without any harm. Should I pull the new reports from Ohio in the 1950's and 60's with rivers so polluted they could and would catch fire? Or the North Carolina Oyster industry near collapse in the 80's because the Oyster nearly died off pollution? Should post picture of LA cover in smog or Chinese cities cover in smog so thick you can't see 25 feet in front of you? Are really go to tell that doesn't affect the environment?

We can debate how much affect there is, but come on, how much evidence do need?

Pollution does not equate to global warming. We've had volcanoes and hundreds of atom bombs detonated and the planet suffered no long term harm. But if you believe humans are responsible for the global warming that hasn't existed for the last 16 years then you certainly can't be looking at America because we've reduced our pollution to levels that are far less than decades ago. Take the US out of the equation and you're still looking at China, India, Mexico, etc. now what?

As has been said by many people, many times - thousands of years ago the USA was covered in ice and your Hummer and my TV set didn't melt it.

Ah, most Volcanoes don't eject as much C02 has humans do in a year, only super volcanoes do, the last time one those erupted was 667,000 years ago and plugged the world into a "nuclear winter" lasting 100 years. Atom bombs? Really? Sure the release lethal amounts of radiation, super heat the air for miles and contaminate the ground for thousands of year, but they are too small to much effect globally, unless you fire off thousands at one time, then we all dead shadows on walls.