FYI: nobody here gives a whit about reading what you just pasted. It’s all about individual contributions these days. Write your own words. Everyone has the ability to open a browser and look at some faceless one sided mindless twaddle. Step up with your own thoughts, even though they may be banal and trite and bland and yada yada yada.
My sisters 4 year old kid can cut and paste. It’s nice to see you have mastered the colour function though, old fruit. I’ll show you how to change the font when you are ready…
You need to improve your game. These tired tactics makes fools of us all.
Individual contributions? Is that the right noun for your efforts? rather exertions…
Nice to know that someone in your family, albeit a four-year old, has given your family and its genetics cause for hope.
My family never had problems with its genetics.
You mean after your four-year old niece has taught you to do so. Cue to dueling banjos from Deliverance… does she at least have all of her teeth?
Hmmm one would imagine that agency reports with direct findings as to whether these programs are proving successful would be highly germane to these debates.
Yes, I agree that these tired tactics CONTINUE to make fools of you all.
Actually, I believe that there are BILLIONS of people in the world. Perhaps, your niece could… oh never mind!
Could you put your niece on the phone? I am trying to understand how these nonsequiturs have any relevance to the issue of whether all of the billions (not millions hahaha) of dollars spent on climate change efforts are worth it. Apparently, it is not having the desired effect but, I am sure that your narrative involving all of these individuals and their need to “make a difference” especially as highlighted in their “individual” efforts at Facebook pages highlighting how important and noble and responsible they all are is what is, after all, the desired and most important aim?
??? Let’s see where this follows…
OH! I see! You are confusing “senses” in your sentence. The five senses are sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch… none of which is represented in your second sentence… and I assure you that spending time to respond to you, more than anything, proves that I have one helluva sense of humor.
As your senses seem to be limited, let me draw you a picture… one that you can share with your four-year old niece, who quite honestly, I would must prefer to engage in any discussions on this subject…
Not sure if you remember me correctly. I performed an IPA on you… Somewhere is the concession that you agree I am your equal… anyway… enjoy your games.
You need a concession from me to be my equal? Better discuss this with your niece before posting again… she seems to have all the brilliance in the family… not fair but live in hope of a better future.
Like presenting factually relevant material to buttress one’s argument? point of view? add to the discussion so that it is not just a solipsistic trip down one’s own egoistic lane?
Ah… your niece is finally here and the conversation has taken a decided turn for the intelligent.
[quote]There are millions of people in the world. And none of those people is an extra. They’re all leads in their own stories.
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced. That’s why people with no sense of humour have an increased sense of self-importance.[/quote]
Surely quoting one’s own signature lines is a bit… what is the word… rechaufee? n’est ce-pas?
[quote]Millions wasted on climate change research
Monday, 5 March 2012 8:59 am ·
Add the words “climate change” or “global warming” into any proposal for research funding, and your chances of success are improved immeasurably. Government agencies are just desperate to throw away precious funds on anything which might help the alarmist “Cause”, and yet again puts the lie to the claim that sceptics are a tightly-knit well-funded team. Put the words “climate sceptic” in your proposal, it will guarantee to fail, not least because climate sceptics are just one notch above pedophiles in the politically-correct social strata that we presently inhabit. Wasting money on pointless “climate change” initiatives is standard procedure for this embarrassment of a government (see here), so it’s hardly surprising that millions of taxpayers money is literally flushed down the lavatory on tenuous climate-related research:
MILLIONS of dollars in government research funding is being ploughed into studies of emotion in climate change messages, ancient economic life in Italy and the history of the moon.
Studies of sleeping snails and determining if Australian birds are getting smaller because of climate change have also been allocated funding in the latest round of grants totalling $300 million by the Australian Research Council.
A study of “an ignored credit instrument in Florentine economic, social and religious life from 1570 to 1790” secured $578,792 for a researcher from the University of Western Australia.
The council insists the study was approved because it had modern day relevance to the global financial crisis as it shows how Florence in ancient times recovered from an economic downturn and because no one had studied that element of history before.
Another project titled “Sending and responding to messages about climate change: the role of emotion and morality” by a Queensland university secured $197,302. The council said it was an important psychology project.
The study to determine if birds are shrinking was awarded $314,000 and another of sleeping snails to determine “factors that aid life extension” was given $145,000. Studying the early history of the moon will cost taxpayers $210,000 and another study looking at “William Blake in the 21st century” comes with a $636,904 bill.
“At a time when every available dollar could be put to backing innovation and research and development to make us more competitive, we have seen a growth in support for some real eyebrow-raising activities,” opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said. (source)[/quote]
[quote]UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2012: +0.34 deg. C
September 6th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for August (+0.34 °C) was up from July 2012 (+0.28 °C):[/quote]
So global average temperatures in August are 0.34 degrees Celsius higher than the average since… wait for it… wait for it… 1979… which was a very cold period indeed. So, global temperatures on average up 0.34 degrees Celsius… from a particularly cold period… color me horrified HORRIFIED…
So the Democrat convention is over… and the subject of global warming or climate change came up in a two sentence statement by Obama. Contrast this with his 2008 speech… and then one other speech out of 80 mentions it in passing and a sentence or two from Clinton our of a 40 minute speech and no Al Gore at the convention. Is it NOT TRULY AMAZING how Fred Smith has not only infiltrated EVERY single Democrat politician and its campaign BUT ALSO every Western, developed and most developing national governments and their leadership. I am truly GOD GOD GOD… how amazing am I? please all bow, kneel and pay obeisance to the Great Frederick P. Smith v.
Sorry to be boring (too late!!!) but has anyone heard anything about stopping the rising seas or curing the earth’s fever? Just wanted to make sure that I was not missing any important planks in the Democratic re-election effort that included the very most important thing facing humanity today… Take your time… I have time… happy for any and all serious (haha) replies… (haha)
Oh dear. I have bumped this post FIVE times… FIVE whole times? Gosh. Isn’t that funny? I mean it used to be those who cared about global warming who could not WAIT to post the next citation showing how GLOBAL WARMING was and is happening NOW… and NOW? No such news or interest? Gosh. I really miss acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Those were the days…
You must be well connected around here, the rest of us get banned for petty crap, yet you are free to troll your own stupid, yet similar threads, all at your own leisure.
To celebrate your views I will throw some fast food containers out the window of my car today. That’ll show those green bastard!
Trolling is for when you are only trying to get people to rise to the bait or get angry. I have been around far too long discussing global warming and then climate change for anyone not to understand that I have a principled stance on this issue… one that has apparently been the ONLY one to stand the test of time. I see plenty of people with plenty of time to discuss other issues and so I do not believe for one minute that they do not have the time or willingness to discuss this only because I am challenging them on this. I think that, now and only now, do they truly understand that IF this is the issue that the claim that it has been exaggerated and falsified for far too long and that the real reprecussions will be no where near as serious as first gushed. And second, even with the lowered expectations of climate change induced problems, the overall balance is that funding awareness campaigns and international travel by precious UN and NGO types is NOT the solution.
Read the article on the BBC? Super-green electric cars? Apparently they are WORSE than the gas guzzlers for climate change if they are hooked up to coal power plants and what are most of the power plants being built these days? COAL. Of course, it is and will be very enjoyable to see the confused clamor for what? more nuclear power plants to prevent this? I mean here, yet again, is here yet again another example of the supposedly good intentions of the environmental fascist brigade (remember biofuels? ethanol from corn?) that have foundered JUST LIKE the skeptics like me said they would. People need to think these things through a LOT more and stop feeling precious, entitled to their views when they don’t have the intelligence or information to back it up, and even worse in need of the ability to “make a difference.” Jesus at least suburban housewives only shop for shit that they don’t need. These people expect the planet to stop on a dime to make them feel good about themselves. I ask you: Which is the worse example of crass consumerism? Too many Walmart plastic items and Gucci bags OR the need to subject hundreds of millions to lost opportunities for development so that some sophomoric half-assed educated butt munch can feel that they are special? Jesus. Get a hello kitty toy at McDonalds and leave the rest of us alone!
[quote=“fred smith”]Trolling is for when you are only trying to get people to rise to the bait or get angry. I have been around far too long discussing global warming and then climate change for anyone not to understand that I have a principled stance on this issue… one that has apparently been the ONLY one to stand the test of time. I see plenty of people with plenty of time to discuss other issues and so I do not believe for one minute that they do not have the time or willingness to discuss this only because I am challenging them on this. I think that, now and only now, do they truly understand that IF this is the issue that the claim that it has been exaggerated and falsified for far too long and that the real reprecussions will be no where near as serious as first gushed. And second, even with the lowered expectations of climate change induced problems, the overall balance is that funding awareness campaigns and international travel by precious UN and NGO types is NOT the solution.
Read the article on the BBC? Super-green electric cars? Apparently they are WORSE than the gas guzzlers for climate change if they are hooked up to coal power plants and what are most of the power plants being built these days? COAL. Of course, it is and will be very enjoyable to see the confused clamor for what? more nuclear power plants to prevent this? I mean here, yet again, is here yet again another example of the supposedly good intentions of the environmental fascist brigade (remember biofuels? ethanol from corn?) that have foundered JUST LIKE the skeptics like me said they would. People need to think these things through a LOT more and stop feeling precious, entitled to their views when they don’t have the intelligence or information to back it up, and even worse in need of the ability to “make a difference.” Jesus at least suburban housewives only shop for shit that they don’t need. These people expect the planet to stop on a dime to make them feel good about themselves. I ask you: Which is the worse example of crass consumerism? Too many Walmart plastic items and Gucci bags OR the need to subject hundreds of millions to lost opportunities for development so that some sophomoric half-assed educated butt munch can feel that they are special? Jesus. Get a hello kitty toy at McDonalds and leave the rest of us alone! [/quote]
I have trolled this topic for ages, its my thing, so not really trolling! Got it!
Climate change is not a topic relatively important to swing voters. People want to know if their kids will have jobs. People want to know if their elderly relatives’ Medicare/Medicaid benefits will continue and for how long. People want to know if Social Security will be solvent so they can retire at their planned age. People want to know if we’re going to war with Iran. There are many topics more immediately pressing than the effects of climate change.
Your question is equivalent to asking why the focus of the Republican National Convention wasn’t the colonization of space. It’s well known that Republicans broadly support space exploration. Their continued support is vital to winning two counties in Southeastern Florida. And yet it was barely mentioned during the Republican National Convention. Why? Controlling Earth’s climate, and colonizing other planets are absolute necessities to securing humanity’s future. But both enterprises are hugely expensive and carry uncertain benefits. Issues immediately impacting the lives of voters decide elections. That’s the reality, and there’s your answer.
Certainly took you long enough to getting around to saying you essentially agree with me. No need for the whole paragraph of blah blah blah. This sums it up nicely and makes the point perfectly well.
Certainly took you long enough to getting around to saying you essentially agree with me. No need for the whole paragraph of blah blah blah. This sums it up nicely and makes the point perfectly well.[/quote]
Actually, if you had expressed the point so calmly and non-annoyingly then probably most posters would have agreed with you. Why would you want to incite people to disagree with your facts and arguments by being annoying?
But then I guess the threads would be boring if everyone was calm, reasonable and non-annoying, yes?
Big John, no one agrees with fred. As gao, and earlier I pointed out, the reason GW isn’t an election issue is obvious and is unrelated to the seriousness of it.
Other issues I have noticed not of much concern with US voters (despite their obvious significance):
Collapse of worldwide fish stocks due to overfishing
Growing Chinese aggression toward US allies in Asia
The crisis with the Euro
Failing democracy in Russia
I think Fred has made some good points, buried away among the Hahahahas!, absurd demands, and refusals to answer straight forward questions. I am more of a climate skeptic than I used to be. But that doesn’t mean that the IPCC is kaput. I’m really looking forward to 2014 to see how they look at the evidence.
But Fred could have had far more of an impact had he argued calmly and rationally. I guess he isn’t really here to change people’s perceptions, but rather to ridicule them. Or that’s how he comes across to me.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
Other issues I have noticed not of much concern with US voters (despite their obvious significance):
Collapse of worldwide fish stocks due to overfishing
Growing Chinese aggression toward US allies in Asia
The crisis with the Euro
Failing democracy in Russia[/quote]
I’ll show you how to change the font when you are ready…
Got it! 
