epic fail
military funny
stupid human

Latest comments


fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:26am, #75395

Have a good one, OTC. Cheers =)

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:25am, #75394

Accept my apology if I over did it. Truly, it was nothing personal. I just got carried away is all. Still loves ya, mate. ;-) We are just doing our Siskel and Ebert thing. I enjoy it too. Just take me with a grain of salt. You enjoy the weekend as well

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:23am, #75393

haha...You didn't push my b.uttons mate ;-) Im always this cantankerous when I quit smoking.Sorry if I came off as harsh.I admit I was being too opinionated.I truly didn't mean it.Just got caught up in the spirit of things and was being overly competitive

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:20am, #75392

correction(#75389): "No one in their right mind would suggest that MOST (if not NEARLY ALL) climatologists do 'NOT' find MMCC to be unequivocal."

OTC - Apr 19, 2015 1:19am, #75391

I usually enjoy sparring with you, but you went off the deep end, sorry, didn't mean to push your bu.tton, have a good weekend mate

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:18am, #75390

They are only guilty of being a little rough around the edges and over simplifying things a bit for an ignorant public. But whether THE TRUTH is the consensus is 95.2% or 99.3%, they are still in the right ballpark. You're splitting hairs, mate.(2/2)

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:16am, #75389

In other words, OTC, you can't see the forest for the trees. No one in their right mind would suggest that MOST (if not NEARLY ALL) climatologists find MMCC to be unequivocal. Four peer-reviewed meta studies on the consensus uphold this (1/2)

OTC - Apr 19, 2015 1:14am, #75388

It's not my own science, its science other than MMCC, such as cosmoclimatology, pacific decadal oscillation, earth's orbit etc. but because those don't fit the MMCC narrative its just junk political science

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:13am, #75387

(on OTC#75383) You are misrepresenting facts completely.Virtually every peer-reviewed study and reputable climatologist finds that MMCC is unequivocal when they examine the findings.They invite your skepticism.But reject your baseless denial.

OTC - Apr 19, 2015 1:11am, #75386

Denying we are a major factor in the game is not the same as denying science. you believe we are, I believe its nature and that this would be happening (as it has done in the history of earth) even if we weren't burning fossil fuels.

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:06am, #75385

...but, aside from junk science (which is NOT really science) you can't have your OWN 'science' (not in the objective logical sense, at least - as in, you can have your OWN set of opinions, but not your OWN set of facts). Cheers

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:04am, #75384

According to the Christian theology, I probably AM blasphemous and I'm probably going to their hell in their worldview. I can live with their opinion of me. Why? Because I can care less what they think of me. You can have your own religion...

OTC - Apr 19, 2015 1:04am, #75383

And l report that said as little as 79 papers were used to draw a consensus. Kinda like "4 out of 5 dentists agree.." Where dies that come from? Someone has to make that determination, can they be trusted? Who decided on the 97%, Cook, Zimmerman, Doran?

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 1:02am, #75382

Well science says MMCC is unequivocal and you are denying it. I'm just telling you what the science SAYS. No one is saying you have to AGREE with the science; you have the freedom to DENY it all you want. I deny God exists.Feel free to call me blasphemous

OTC - Apr 19, 2015 12:56am, #75381

Consensus was determined, it makes me wonder if some papers were disregarded for not favoring MMCC which would give a different outcome as I've read there were only 200 papers out of 1000's that were used to derive the 97%

OTC - Apr 19, 2015 12:51am, #75380

I love how I'm labeled a 'science denier' because I don't believe MMCO2. is causing global warming but contributing to it along with other factors that may have a greater percentage of an effect than what we are doing. since I couldn't find how the

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 12:02am, #75379

But yeah, I whole-heartedly agree that both sides engage in a denialism that is equally stupid. We are all guilty of letting our politics get in the way. It's the people that can't admit it that are THE REAL troublemakers. My 2 cents,Calron.Cheers,mate =)

fauxnews - Apr 19, 2015 12:00am, #75378

...I dont think there is a problem even as severe as MMCC that we humans cant evolve past.But that require BOTH SIDES to let go of their dogma.They need to acknowledge science(ie.deniers)and how their personal politics ONLY makes things worse(ie.the left)

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:59pm, #75377

...I dont think there is a problem even as severe as MMCC that we humans cant evolve past.But that require BOTH SIDES to let go of their dogma.They need to acknowledge science(ie.deniers)and how their personal politics ONLY makes things worse(ie.the left)

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:57pm, #75376

...the documentary "Pandora's Promise" shows how the left is complicit as the right in keeping us dependent on a status quo that is killing our planet by basically starving our species of "progress." I think the left underestimates human ingenuity...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:56pm, #75375

...the problem over MMCC will probably largely fix itself when we run out of oil, which will happen sooner than we like to think. But between the damage we've already done to the planet AND our addiction to oil, that is WHERE calamity awaits us...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:54pm, #75374

...The left are NUCLEAR POWER deniers in that they fail to acknowledge that nuclear power probably holds the ONLY PROMISE to accommodating society in the face of peak oil and a calamity on the horizon caused by oil dependence...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:53pm, #75373

...the film indicts THE RIGHT for denying science and being in the pocket of oil companies. It also indicts the left for DENYING the realities of our energy needs by attacking nuclear power which is safer than stereotypes suggest...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:52pm, #75372

...Green energies won't fix a planet THIS overpopulated and dependent on oil. We need to convert to nuclear power...and FAST. There is a great documentary I always squawk about titled "Pandora's Promise". It indicts both the right and the left...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:50pm, #75371

...For me, climate change is a window (a symptom) into a MUCH LARGER problem, energy co-dependence. That is what is really sinking our species. It makes everyone dependent on the volatile Middle East for our survival...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:49pm, #75370

...To evoke a figurative a***ogy, Calron, climatology is right in their diagnosis of the disease.But the FAR-RIGHT inadvertently makes a powerful case that the liberals have come up with a cure that only makes it worse....

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:46pm, #75369

(reply to #75361) Yes, I agree on this. I think the left would LOVE to use the consensus on MMCC to create an eco elite where lame green energy alternatives and wacky anti-vaxxer wholistic beliefs are empowered.To me it's in the same league as scientology

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:44pm, #75368

(reply to #75366)Aye, mate. Like I said, it's hard to have a proper dialogue on a commentboard with this limits. Easy to get lazy or be sloppy. ;-) Usually I mean "climatologists" on this debate when I say scientists. Good catch.

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:42pm, #75367

...Even if climatology is finding that MMCC is real, I don't think that represents an indictment. The politicians are doing that, and hopefully people go after the hard targets (the people in power) not the easy targets; which are just strawmen.Cheers:-)

calron - Apr 18, 2015 11:40pm, #75366

Looks like you didn't see my last post as well as the link. You really should say climatologists when you point to very high levels of agreement. If you are less specific then you get about 20% in decent.

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:39pm, #75365

...So, even though that is true, when deniers go after the scientists to get back at the liberals and the media, that is simply wrong..and a strategy destined to backfire. It's scapegoating...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:38pm, #75364

In other words, it is NOT the scientists that should be blamed for doing their jobs. But the media, and politicians, who likes to make everything into a soap opera....

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:37pm, #75363

...(cont.from #75362)as all the scientists are saying is that MMCC is unequivocal AND it is serious. But then the libs jump in and conflate it to scare people...which I agree is wrong...

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:35pm, #75362

...In other words, the science community saying MMCC is unequivocal hopefully isn't the same thing as saying WE ARE DOOMED! I know the scientists are saying this. That's where the media IS at fault (as well as some libs)

calron - Apr 18, 2015 11:35pm, #75361

Unfortunately a lot of misinformation gets put out by both sides, but something I found interesting is... It shows consensus on one point and yet disagreement on another.

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:33pm, #75360

I think it's fair to say that science is saying MMCC is unequivocal. However, I think it's idiotic to a**UME that this is a doom and gloom scenario. To say this means it is the end of the world is as bad as denying the science IMHO

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:32pm, #75359

we could probably have a dialogue that would allow for the nuance and thoughtfulness to come through. You'd see we are more alike in our skepticism that you'd think. I'm being reductive here for the purpose of practicality.

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:31pm, #75358

(replying to #75354 and #75355) Believe it or not, Calron, we agree more than it appears. I don't really disagree with your position per say *sigh* It's hard to have an effective debate on a commentboard :-/ In a more thoughtful setting,like our own forum

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:29pm, #75357

But that shouldnt stop scientists across the board from challenging this.Hopefully they will keep at it.I would love it if IT did turn out they were wrong.Who wants to be right about environmental calamity?But I think it's healthy to face hard truths(2/2)

fauxnews - Apr 18, 2015 11:27pm, #75356

(reply to #75324) Of course, Calron. I'm not suggesting suddenly science should stop being skeptical about this or anything. I'm just pointing out that, for now and for awhile now, the findings are standing up to the scrutiny very well.(1/2)


Skip to page

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990