Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The Global Warming Denial Machine

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Global Warming Denial Machine
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

Gopher wrote:

I would only express my confusion as to how a scientifically-minded fellow can so self-righteously single-out and critique a "global-warming denial-machine" but so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence, since as early as the 1970s, of a counterpart global-warming production-machine...and all the while preaching about intellectual honesty, too, mind you.

Gopher, you have any evidence of a concerted effort to misrepresent climate science on the consensus side? Any evidence of the same type that we have on the denial side? Any evidence of a left-wing conspiracy? ?

Here you go:

http://zach.e53.org/2007/02/09/global-warming

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

1. There is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
2. It is a good idea to provisionally accept any given scientific consensus.

.

Good thing that Galileo and Columbus (to list just 2 dissenters in a long history) didn't accept number 2.

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject:

TUM... You will note that there was, no scientific consensus that employed our modern idea of scientific investigation. Science back then was fragile guesswork based on misunderstood OBSERVATIONS.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

gang ah jee wrote:

...exactly the kind of special pleading that Meegook used to use in the evolution thread...hand-waving.

You just cannot talk to me without insulting, can you? LOL.

I made a good-faith offering to stop arguing and start talking. I suspect we would agree on more than we disagree were we to work our way around the personality conflict. Too much to ask apparently.

This twit used to say the same to me... and always broke his word. He's as sincere as Bush is.

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Here you go:

http://zach.e53.org/2007/02/09/global-warming

ARe you kidding me? Some hackneyed blog that doesn't even come CLOSE to point out:

Quote:

evidence of a concerted effort to misrepresent climate science on the consensus side

But I LOVE the irony of this quote:

Quote:

I find it to be �popular science� in the most general sense of the term. It�s a loosely based interpretation of certain pieces of specific sciences mixed with an already well established environmentally based political agenda. �Popular Science� is science that �generally attempts to wield the authority of science, sometimes even on social and political issues, but scientific content�the facts and arguments of professional science�changes considerably in translation, with some aspects lost and others gained.

It becomes quite clear that "eric" hasn't done enough research to form an opinion he feels confident in espousing. Good on him for doing that, but too bad he doesn't realize it and switches his "healthy skepticism" for an "uninformed, baseless bias".

Quote:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

As for this Dicky Lindzen, it seems weird that he would go so far as to denigrate the POSSIBILITY that we see human involvement; Why do you disregard it dicky???? WHY!!!???
oh wait:

Quote:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

gang ah jee wrote:

Gopher wrote:

Here you go:

http://zach.e53.org/2007/02/09/global-warming

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The first link says nothing of any use. The second is an opinion piece that does not support any of its assertions, it simply makes them. Find the supports for any of the assertions, I'll be glad top read them.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Here you go:
http://zach.e53.org/2007/02/09/global-warming

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The first source starts with this promising statement:

Zach's Blog wrote:

Personally I don�t buy all this �civilization is in danger� BS regarding �global warming� but that is besides the point.

The guts of what follows is based around a Lindzen quote and an op-ed in the WSJ Opinion Journal that includes the following admission:

James Taranto wrote:

Our skepticism rests largely on intuition.

And forgive me for bad form, but here's a picture of Zach:

If I'd laid out all my pocket money for a pimping fur hat I'd probably be skeptical of global warming too.

The second source is a Lindzen editorial, also from the WSJ Opinion Journal. This is fine, but we've covered him already, and some corroborating sources would be nice. Perhaps the global community of climate scientists is, as he suggests, 'cowed not merely by money but by fear' - but surely they could organise a movement that consisted of more than Lindzen op-eds, no? Perhaps the IPCC is still holding the gun to their heads over the 4th Assessment Report? Seriously though, at least some of them have tenure, the main purpose of which is to enable dissenting views. Perhaps this movement is still organising? When it arrives I'll let you be the first to tell me that you told me so.

edit:

kyber wrote:

But I LOVE the irony of this quote:

Quote:

At least he referenced it to wikipedia!

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject:

khyber wrote:

Quote:

Here you go:

http://zach.e53.org/2007/02/09/global-warming

(1) ARe you kidding me? Some hackneyed blog that doesn't even come CLOSE to point out:

Quote:

evidence of a concerted effort to misrepresent climate science on the consensus side

But I LOVE the irony of this quote:

Quote:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

As for this *beep* Lindzen, it seems weird that he would go so far as to denigrate the POSSIBILITY that we see human involvement; Why do you disregard it *beep*???? WHY!!!???
oh wait:

Quote:

(2)Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability

(Numbers are mine)

1. eric was merely pointing out the style of scientists and media on the other side who employ such tactics as comparing people who question global warming= cataclysm with Holocaust deniers. That is obscene and uncalled for. It also points out how these scientists and media distort the views of people on the other side by stating that they question "global warming" which in fact very few do. Most scientists agree that the earth is warming, they simply differ as to its causes.

2. Exactly my point. He is not saying human involvement is not there as you (and the global warming=disaster side would have it) he is saying that the current warming is also likely part of a natural trend and it would be foolish to discount this. I do thank you for illustrating how your side acts though.

It seems strange that scientists and people can assert confidently that this current warming trend is solely or almost all because of man-made emissions of one kind or another. Ah well I guess we'll find out in 10-20 years who's right.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

It seems strange that scientists and people can assert confidently that this current warming trend is solely or almost all because of man-made emissions of one kind or another. Ah well I guess we'll find out in 10-20 years who's right.

Actually, nobody is claiming that other factors aren't involved. The problem is that apart from man-made CO2, no mechanism that could force the degree of observed warming is forthcoming. On top of that, the current rate of warming is consistent with the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, so any new mechanism has also to show why man-made CO2 is not having an effect on the climate. It's entirely possible that this could change - a new mechanism could be discovered tomorrow, even. But until then we have to use the best information we have, and that is that CO2 is the primary agent in forcing climate change.

You are right though that from now on only time will tell.

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject:

Quote:

1. eric was merely pointing out the style of scientists and media on the other side who employ such tactics as comparing people who question global warming= cataclysm with Holocaust deniers.

Some of these global warming deniers are disregarded. What you must understand is the REASONING for it...and yes there IS a reason; some would argue a DAMN good one...actually two:
1) Put it into perspective the number of scientists who OUTRIGHT deny GW/CC is miniscule compared to the number of scientists who either a) agree it's happenning AND it's man made b)agree it's happening.
Should Holocaust deniers be given the SAME amount of airtime as Holocaust supporters SIMPLY BECAUSE it is an "informed" opinion?
Should creationism be taught in schools as an secondary possibility to evolution? What about wagawagism? That is a third, virtually unknown theory for the diversity of life...why shouldn't IT be given a chance?
Are you implying that simply because there is an OPPOSING viewpoint, that it should be given equal credibility and equal time to share the podium?

2) These scientist "skeptics" that made up the the "saving the cigarette" scientific backwash of claims are employing the EXACT same MO to disrepair the scientific standing of global warming.
Now, if these SAME people are using the SAME method of operations to accomplish what is (in essence) the same goal, how is it that their detractors DON'T have a right to be suspicious. That, in conjunction with the CLEAR partnership MANY of them have with oil companies, puts them SQUARE into the sights of bias hunters if you ask me.
Whether there is bias or not is only really known to the scientist itself but if it looks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, and craps like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Quote:

It seems strange that scientists and people can assert confidently that this current warming trend is solely or almost all because of man-made emissions of one kind or another.

It seems strange that scientists can KNOW and understand their discipline and have the ability to read data so well that they can extrapolate strong hypotheses as to the nature of the world?
That seems strange to you?
No wonder you're having problems with the scientific community.

Quote:

He is not saying human involvement is not there as you (and the global warming=disaster side would have it) he is saying that the current warming is also likely part of a natural trend and it would be foolish to discount this.

I think it's too bad you took the time to be condescending when you (obviously) don't REALLy understand what he's driving at:

Quote:

Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.

He is not SPECIFICALLY arguing (in THIS article at leat) "that it is part of a natural trend". I don't know if you took that from some other archaeic science paper or you COMPLETELY misinterpreted this one, but either way, he is not addressing other "possibilities for the cause of global warming" with this article: He said that the correlative rise of CO2 and temperature does NOT indicate that man is responsible for the global warming. He doesn't provide any OTHER options.
But I do thank you for demonstrating how your side doesn't quit understand scientists (even though they go to GREAT lengths to dumb it down).

One thing in particular that I don't understand about this man's article is that this quote:
[/quote]Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.[quote]is followed by this:

Quote:

ndeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

I can't figure out if this guy wants the climate to be studied or whether he was playing on "financial sympathies" when he included (in context) the first quote.

Also, I find this quote funny:

Quote:

And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Quote:

, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

1) The Fossil Fuel industry, like any other industry, in the world, is striving for success and is hoping create in the public's eye, the idea that it is a good idea to "invest" in what they have to offer.
2) Scientific research can help to develop an "idea" and make it into a pra
3) After some time, scientists use money to finance their OWN work (often, unrelated to anything that is directly implicit with the FF industry). They require that money to keep their research going.
4) If they continue to require that money (and oil companies are the only ones likely to give it to them) they will continue to provide information that is useful
ctical reality.
5) However, if a scientist presents information that will not help to make the FF industry successful, why would the scientist continue to be funded?

It is utterly retarded to think that a scientist does NOT become chained to their financial supporters. It is ALMOSt more ridiculous to think that a scientist who is supported by an oil industry company could possibly present information which goes against the company's ideals.
And finally, it is folly (though not retarded) to pin too much trust in someone who would loose a lifetime of work if an outside force would have a detrimental affect on them.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Good thing that Galileo and Columbus (to list just 2 dissenters in a long history) didn't accept number 2.

Oh, just noticed this. Firstly, khyber's right that 'science' as we know it didn't exist at that time. What people knew about the world was mostly limited to religious doctrine, direct observation and a priori speculation, so from our perspective now 'scientific consensus' on anything carried no real meaning. Secondly, the suggestion is not that everyone should always accept scientific consensus all the time; rather, accepting the scientific consensus is generally the sensible thing to do for lay people without specialisation in a given field. If you'd like to get all trained up in climate science, formulate some hypotheses, and do the research to test them, then go for it. Even if Exxon's cut back on their funding, I'm sure there still are all kinds of interests willing to fund contrarian global warming research (or at least pay for you to editorialise publically). Thirdly, it was common knowledge in Columbus' time that the world was round - people just thought it smaller than it was, hence 'Indians'.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:01 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

2. Exactly my point. He is not saying human involvement is not there as you (and the global warming=disaster side would have it) he is saying that the current warming is also likely part of a natural trend and it would be foolish to discount this. I do thank you for illustrating how your side acts though.

Who the hell has ever said otherwise? Stupid point because it is stated over and over and over that there is the natural cycle and the very rational fear that it is being augmented by human activity. Why do we need to address the obvious in every post? Find me one person ANYWHERE with any credibility whatsoever who claims there is no impact from natural warming trends. **One**.

Crikey...

Quote:

You are a dolt if you believe that is what anyone is saying. I know of nobody who has stated such stupidity. Again, find **one**.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:52 am Post subject:

khyber wrote:

Quote:

1. eric was merely pointing out the style of scientists and media on the other side who employ such tactics as comparing people who question global warming= cataclysm with Holocaust deniers.

Some of these global warming deniers are disregarded. What you must understand is the REASONING for it...and yes there IS a reason; some would argue a DAMN good one...actually two:
1) Put it into perspective the (I) number of scientists who OUTRIGHT deny GW/CC is miniscule compared to the number of scientists who either a) agree it's happenning AND it's man made b)agree it's happening.
(II) Should Holocaust deniers be given the SAME amount of airtime as Holocaust supporters SIMPLY BECAUSE it is an "informed" opinion?
(III) Should creationism be taught in schools as an secondary possibility to evolution? (IV) What about wagawagism? That is a third, virtually unknown theory for the diversity of life...why shouldn't IT be given a chance?
Are you implying that simply because there is an OPPOSING viewpoint, that it should be given equal credibility and equal time to share the podium?

2) These scientist "skeptics" that made up the the "saving the cigarette" scientific backwash of claims are employing the EXACT same MO to disrepair the scientific standing of global warming.
Now, if these SAME people are using the SAME method of operations to accomplish what is (in essence) the same goal, (V) how is it that their detractors DON'T have a right to be suspicious. That, in conjunction with the CLEAR partnership MANY of them have with oil companies, puts them SQUARE into the sights of bias hunters if you ask me.
Whether there is bias or not is only really known to the scientist itself but if it looks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, and craps like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Quote:

It seems strange that scientists and people can assert confidently that this current warming trend is solely or almost all because of man-made emissions of one kind or another.

(VI) It seems strange that scientists can KNOW and understand their discipline and have the ability to read data so well that they can extrapolate strong hypotheses as to the nature of the world?
That seems strange to you?
No wonder you're having problems with the scientific community.

Quote:

(VII) I think it's too bad you took the time to be condescending when you (obviously) don't REALLy understand what he's driving at:

Quote:

He is not SPECIFICALLY arguing (in THIS article at leat) "that it is part of a natural trend". (VIII)I don't know if you took that from some other archaeic science paper or you COMPLETELY misinterpreted this one, but either way, he is not addressing other "possibilities for the cause of global warming" with this article: He said that the correlative rise of CO2 and temperature does NOT indicate that man is responsible for the global warming. He doesn't provide any OTHER options.
But I do thank you for demonstrating how your side doesn't quit understand scientists (even though they go to GREAT lengths to dumb it down).

One thing in particular that I don't understand about this man's article is that this quote:

Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.

Quote:

is followed by this:

Quote:

I can't figure out if this guy wants the climate to be studied or whether he was playing on "financial sympathies" when he included (in context) the first quote.

Also, I find this quote funny:

Quote:

And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Quote:

1) The Fossil Fuel industry, like any other industry, in the world, is striving for success and is hoping create in the public's eye, the idea that it is a good idea to "invest" in what they have to offer.
2) Scientific research can help to develop an "idea" and make it into a pra
3) After some time, scientists use money to finance their OWN work (often, unrelated to anything that is directly implicit with the FF industry). They require that money to keep their research going.
4) If they continue to require that money (and oil companies are the only ones likely to give it to them) they will continue to provide information that is useful
ctical reality.
5) However, if a scientist presents information that will not help to make the FF industry successful, why would the scientist continue to be funded?

(IX)It is utterly retarded to think that a scientist does NOT become chained to their financial supporters. It is ALMOSt more ridiculous to think that a scientist who is supported by an oil industry company could possibly present information which goes against the company's ideals.
(X)And finally, it is folly (though not retarded) to pin too much trust in someone who would loose a lifetime of work if an outside force would have a detrimental affect on them.

(Roman numerals are mine)

(I) Hardly any scientists (even the skeptics) deny that GW is happening. Again you are illustrating how your side works, by rumors and insinuation.

(II) Both Holocaust deniers (those who deny it happened) and Holocaust supportors (those who support it) are repugnant. And since the facts and eyewitness testimony clearly contradict them they should not get any airtime at all to spread their beliefs. The evidence of history is just too strong.

(III) Yes

(IV) If there is strong scientific evidence for it to be included, then yes it would be foolish not to.

(V) Their detractors have every right to be suspicious. They do not however have the right to engage in character assasination.

(VI) Nice try. It seems strange to me that scientists can know and know beyond a doubt that the current warming trend is man-made.

(VII) I know exactly what he is driving at...if you can't understand then far be it from me to point it out.

(VIII) Read between the lines. If man is not responsible then what do you think is..given the current evidence?

(IX) This critism could be leveled against those scientists who are paid by enviromental groups and green activists. Also those who are funded by the government. If they say "Oh well no need to be concerned." They are out of a job.

(X) Again this also applies to the scientists who support the current theory of GW. They too would lose a lifetime of work...at least many of them.

Time will tell...and that is my final word on the subject as it is completely silly to argue otherwise.

But I ask you...so what are YOU (and the other doom-criers) doing to save the environment? Even though I doubt it I still take public transport to work, I don't use hairspray, I don't have A/C in my apartment, I haven't been on a plane since 2004.... I would wager my carbon footprint is a LOT less than many so-called "green" supporters.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:26 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

(V) Their detractors have every right to be suspicious. They do not however have the right to engage in character assasination.

How is it character assassination to call someone a lying lapdog of the oil industry when they, in fact, are? When said persons produce NO research on a topic, yet proclaim themselves experts, they are lying. When they claim they don't even know where their funding comes from, they are lying.

etc., etc.

Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:17 am; edited 1 time in total

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:12 am Post subject:

Quote:

(I) Hardly any scientists (even the skeptics) deny that GW is happening. Again you are illustrating how your side works, by rumors and insinuation.

I'd like to say that this exemplifies how "your side works" but frankly I think it is a "you" problem.
And that problem is a BIG one: you are completely ignorant in this debate to say nothing of the opinions of the scientific community.

Quote:

And since the facts and eyewitness testimony clearly contradict them they should not get any airtime at all to spread their beliefs. The evidence of history is just too strong.

I KNEW you were going to pick up on this trifle of a point. The analogy was pointless, START to finish.

Quote:

(III) Yes

(IV) If there is strong scientific evidence for it to be included, then yes it would be foolish not to.

But fella, there's the thing. This ISN'T about "strong scientific evidence": This debate is about DECENT scientific evidence. Hell, at times it's about ANY scientific evidence.

Quote:

(V) Their detractors have every right to be suspicious. They do not however have the right to engage in character assasination.

Character assasination...bah. Call it "contextualization".
But PLEASE, tell me how "this guy gets his money from Big Oil" is "character assasination".
You could argue that it is professional assasination. But if you ask me, don't play in the briar patch if you don't want a poke.

Quote:

(VI) Nice try. It seems strange to me that scientists can know and know beyond a doubt that the current warming trend is man-made.

THAT seems strange? Scientists are saying (and HAVE said) FAR more outlandish stuff than that, don't you think?
"All biological processes happen within a cell? Get outta here?!!!"
"D-N-what?????"
"You mean to tell me there is a HUMAN EAR on the back of that mouse"?

Quote:

(VII) I know exactly what he is driving at...if you can't understand then far be it from me to point it out.

(VIII) Read between the lines. If man is not responsible then what do you think is..given the current evidence?

I hate to (have to) tell you this but reading between the lines is something that is done in psychology and hermeneutics.
Scientists strive to use VERY precise language: When publishing research, their peers weed through their work with 100 fine tooth combs so it's very important that no unnecessary or superfluous language is used.
If, in THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE Diicky L. didn't SAY "natural trends are the cause", it is wrong to argue that he is taking that position in this write up.
Go ahead and do a bit of research on the guy. I am not talking about THIS GUY, I am talking about THIS PAPER. And, to my eyes, he doesn't address the root causes of GW...AT ALL. His writeup takes issue the intimdation and "smearing" that occurs. That's it.

Quote:

(IX) This critism could be leveled against those scientists who are paid by enviromental groups and green activists. Also those who are funded by the government. If they say "Oh well no need to be concerned." They are out of a job.

This argue is SOOOOOO beyond ludicrious IF it is taken to mean that "GWs and deniers are on par with each other".
But that is COMPLETELY besides the point. Could you show me how much money is put into research through environmental groups?

And besides, (and this is an important thing to note): Environmental groups work for WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. And frankly, there will ALWAYS be work in that field because man is ALWAYS effing up the world.
Oil companies, and I'm hoping you grasp the TRUE implications of this, are not interested in the environment when it deters profit growth.
Period.
You need not look past that to see what source you'd get better information from.

Quote:

(X) Again this also applies to the scientists who support the current theory of GW. They too would lose a lifetime of work...at least many of them.

Is there proof of this anywhere? Do you have any ACTUAL basis for this statement or does it just feel good?

Quote:

Time will tell...and that is my final word on the subject as it is completely silly to argue otherwise.

Time will tell, you are right but it is NOT silly.

Quote:

But I ask you...so what are YOU (and the other doom-criers) doing to save the environment? Even though I doubt it I still take public transport to work, I don't use hairspray, I don't have A/C in my apartment, I haven't been on a plane since 2004.... I would wager my carbon footprint is a LOT less than many so-called "green" supporters.

Glad to see you go beyond character assasination here.
You have absolutely no idea of what my lifestyle is like.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe