Global Warming

[me]

Up to your typical strategy of looking for articles that will support your preconceived notions rather than trying to find out for yourself what the truth is, I see.  Feel free to remain ignorant.

Hum, isn't that what you do? 

[Exterminator]

Hum, isn't that what you do? 

No, loser, but I wouldn't expect you to understand what 'preponderance of the evidence' means as it relates to logical thought processes.

[me]

No, loser, but I wouldn't expect you to understand what 'preponderance of the evidence' means as it relates to logical thought processes.

Here we are with the put downs again...sheesh don't you know how to carry on a civil conversation without having to always be right?  You are without a doubt the most closed minded opinionated person I have had the displeasure to run across lately.  Oh, wait a minute, I forgot about Dan....
You look at your sources and I look at mine.  I don't agree with your sources and you don't agree with mine and that don't make either of us losers, liars, or stupid, it just means we have a difference of opinion.  Deal with it. 

[Bo D]

You look at your sources and I look at mine. 

Your sources said you can't grow grapes in England.

[me]

Your sources said you can't grow grapes in England.

[Exterminator]

Here we are with the put downs again...sheesh don't you know how to carry on a civil conversation without having to always be right?  You are without a doubt the most closed minded opinionated person I have had the displeasure to run across lately.  Oh, wait a minute, I forgot about Dan....
You look at your sources and I look at mine.  I don't agree with your sources and you don't agree with mine and that don't make either of us losers, liars, or stupid, it just means we have a difference of opinion.  Deal with it. 

Look, I really couldn't give a fat rat's arse if you choose to remain ignorant.  It isn't a reflection on me when people read what you've written or talk to you and roll their eyes; it's a reflection on you.  I look at all sources and weigh the empirical evidence; in your haste not to, you obviously missed an article in at least one of your 'sources' that soundly refutes one of the articles you offered.  If you posited that the world was flat and I posited that despite some articles supporting that, the majority of the evidence proved it was spherical, it doesn't mean we have a "difference of opinion"; it means you're stupid.

[me]

Look, I really couldn't give a fat rat's arse if you choose to remain ignorant.  It isn't a reflection on me when people read what you've written or talk to you and roll their eyes; it's a reflection on you.  I look at all sources and weigh the empirical evidence; in your haste not to, you obviously missed an article in at least one of your 'sources' that soundly refutes one of the articles you offered.  If you posited that the world was flat and I posited that despite some articles supporting that, the majority of the evidence proved it was spherical, it doesn't mean we have a "difference of opinion"; it means you're stupid.

And which article would that be?

[Exterminator]

And which article would that be?

Again, had you been looking for all information on the subject rather than only articles which support your flawed opinion, you'd have undoubtedly seen it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907224237.htm

[me]

Again, had you been looking for all information on the subject rather than only articles which support your flawed opinion, you'd have undoubtedly seen it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907224237.htm

Notice the dates:  My source 

Science News

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

Your source:

Science News
Polar Bear Population Predicted To Dwindle WIth Retreating Ice
ScienceDaily (Sep. 8, 2007) — Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies just released by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Could it be you're guilty of doing what you're accusing me of doing?

[Henry Hawk]

Well Ex?   

[Exterminator]

LMFAO!  Are you seriously suggesting that the difference of a few months in the dates of the articles has any bearing on which is more correct?  Does that mean if an article supporting a flat earth is newer, the earth must be flat?

Get real...why don't you actually read the articles and see who is saying what and then consider whether or not you want to present yourself as gullible enough to believe what a Bush-appointed Department of Interior has to say about climate change.  If you do, don't whine when people call you stupid.

[me]

LMFAO!  Are you seriously suggesting that the difference of a few months in the dates of the articles has any bearing on which is more correct?  Does that mean if an article supporting a flat earth is newer, the earth must be flat?

Get real...why don't you actually read the articles and see who is saying what and then consider whether or not you want to present yourself as gullible enough to believe what a Bush-appointed Department of Interior has to say about climate change.  If you do, don't whine when people call you stupid.

Did you not notice it was the same source you used?  Now who's stupid? 

[Henry Hawk]

Did you not notice it was the same source you used?  Now who's stupid? 

HE DID NOT!!..... ...because he does not actually read the articles he SAYS he reads....

[Exterminator]

Aer the two of you completely illiterate?  Yes, it is the same website which was precisely my point when I said that one of me's sources had another article with an opposing conclusion.  The articles, themselves, however, come from two entirely different perspectives...one from the Department of the Interior (hint: political group), the other the US Geological Survey (hint: scientific group).

[me]

This has nothing to do with the government and is another scientific opinion:

Heartland Institute - Article
Federal Government Continues to Weigh ESA Listing of Polar Bears
Numbers aren't declining, experts note
"[M]odest warming may be beneficial to [polar] bears because it creates better habitat for seals and makes blueberry bushes more abundant."

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?articleid=22940