Been away for a couple of days, and it's pretty sad how disrespectful this thread has become!

 

I agree with the posters who believe in reading a lot of information from different sources, because they all have their slant. Does anyone believe the energy providers aren't filling the pipeline as much in their own best interests as scientists who want more grant money?

 

I was not a strong believer of global warming, as I was one of the people who believed the climate is cyclical. I still believe it is cyclical, but on an increasingly warmer trend. I also believe the Earth's increasing population is reducing the planet's ability to purge what we are putting in the environment. I don't believe in a doomsday, but I believe our planet, without changes by mankind, is going to be an increasingly unhealthier place to live.

 

This sums up my position on all counts.

^Same here.

I'm divided on the topic, not slanted, which helps me to stay objective. You are obviously slanted and subjective, and as you put it "the topic is not important to you". That's your prerogative, but for something that is unimportant to you, you sure have been quick in this thread to display your slant. Perhaps that's just your knee-jerk righty-side taking any opportunity to display its superiority complex. Not that it's ever historically been appealing, but more and more as years go by it's becoming more and more appalling, and gets the advancement of humanity and/or the planet nowhere. We'll do our best to progress, but with no thanks to you.

1. I don't believe for one second that you're objective on the topic, you've not posted one single thing in this thread other than an attack on me, which shows just how 'objective' you are.

 

2. If you're going to read my posts, at least try to understand what you just read since I never said the topic wasn't important to me. I said what you see or think of me isn't important to me or the topic.

 

3. I haven't been any quicker to show my slant than you've been to show yours. In fact, I don't remember seeing you in the countless past threads on the subject that I've posted in with link after link after link of why I believe what I do, but that doesn't matter since it won't fit your agenda.

 

4.And I quote "knee-jerk righty-side". That, in a nut shell, tells everyone loud and clear which way you lean and again just how 'objective' you are. :lol:

 

5. Or perhaps someone else is suffering from an inferiority complex, they say there's help out there for that.

 

6. Since it's a natural occurrence, you'll do nothing of the sort. You have no power, like it or not.

 

Have a nice day. :thumb:

1. I don't believe for one second that you're objective on the topic, you've not posted one single thing in this thread other than an attack on me, which shows just how 'objective' you are.

 

2. If you're going to read my posts, at least try to understand what you just read since I never said the topic wasn't important to me. I said what you see or think of me isn't important to me or the topic.

 

3. I haven't been any quicker to show my slant than you've been to show yours. In fact, I don't remember seeing you in the countless past threads on the subject that I've posted in with link after link after link of why I believe what I do, but that doesn't matter since it won't fit your agenda.

 

4.And I quote "knee-jerk righty-side". That, in a nut shell, tells everyone loud and clear which way you lean and again just how 'objective' you are. :lol:

 

5. Or perhaps someone else is suffering from an inferiority complex, they say there's help out there for that.

 

6. Since it's a natural occurrence, you'll do nothing of the sort. You have no power, like it or not.

 

Have a nice day. :thumb:

 

I won't be numbering things, I'll just address things as they flow from me...

 

Sorry that I misunderstood "the importance of the topic" part of your post. I imagine that you can see after rereading how it might be taken one way or another.

 

I've never been wild about the far right, or the far left because neither of them are objective. That there should tell everyone loud and clear which way I lean. It's called original thought, and I think for myself and do not salivate over loud mouthed am radio talk show hosts from either side with their slanted twisted take of reality.

 

I haven't been responding since the beginning of the thread because it was only yesterday that I first read the thread and you're the one that stood out as being the most subjective poster of them all. Congratulations... you stood out.

 

Since neither of us know completely whether or not it's due to a natural occurrence, the irresponsibility of humanity, or a bit of both, I'm keeping an open mind to learn what might be required of me to do my part for the interest of future generations. Writing it off as completely a natural occurrence is truly slanted and a form of sticking one's head in the sand. Is that being objective or just sticking to what fits within the right-side agenda where you're comfortable? They don't let you think for yourself way over there, do they?

 

Inferiority complex? ... really? ... does it appear that way? ... I'm part of that 10 or so percent that thinks for one's self. When I once in a blue moon have the fortune of speaking with others in that category we typically aren't looking to have a superiority complex, but often times we end up with one by default. It's not our intent... but with so much stupidity that abounds, we have a hard time resisting the urge. I'm working on that though... sometimes I get a handle on it and sometimes I let it fly... oooppps... better duck.... it's coming at cha!!!

Been away for a couple of days, and it's pretty sad how disrespectful this thread has become!

 

I agree with the posters who believe in reading a lot of information from different sources, because they all have their slant. Does anyone believe the energy providers aren't filling the pipeline as much in their own best interests as scientists who want more grant money?

 

I was not a strong believer of global warming, as I was one of the people who believed the climate is cyclical. I still believe it is cyclical, but on an increasingly warmer trend. I also believe the Earth's increasing population is reducing the planet's ability to purge what we are putting in the environment. I don't believe in a doomsday, but I believe our planet, without changes by mankind, is going to be an increasingly unhealthier place to live.

 

Good luck getting the Chinese buying into this!

Good luck getting the Chinese buying into this!

 

True!! But it is not hopeless. The Chinese are smart people.

 

Environmental activism gains a foothold in China | Environment | Guardian Weekly

I won't be numbering things, I'll just address things as they flow from me...

 

Sorry that I misunderstood "the importance of the topic" part of your post. I imagine that you can see after rereading how it might be taken one way or another.

 

I've never been wild about the far right, or the far left because neither of them are objective. That there should tell everyone loud and clear which way I lean. It's called original thought, and I think for myself and do not salivate over loud mouthed am radio talk show hosts from either side with their slanted twisted take of reality.

 

I haven't been responding since the beginning of the thread because it was only yesterday that I first read the thread and you're the one that stood out as being the most subjective poster of them all. Congratulations... you stood out.

 

Since neither of us know completely whether or not it's due to a natural occurrence, the irresponsibility of humanity, or a bit of both, I'm keeping an open mind to learn what might be required of me to do my part for the interest of future generations. Writing it off as completely a natural occurrence is truly slanted and a form of sticking one's head in the sand. Is that being objective or just sticking to what fits within the right-side agenda where you're comfortable? They don't let you think for yourself way over there, do they?

 

Inferiority complex? ... really? ... does it appear that way? ... I'm part of that 10 or so percent that thinks for one's self. When I once in a blue moon have the fortune of speaking with others in that category we typically aren't looking to have a superiority complex, but often times we end up with one by default. It's not our intent... but with so much stupidity that abounds, we have a hard time resisting the urge. I'm working on that though... sometimes I get a handle on it and sometimes I let it fly... oooppps... better duck.... it's coming at cha!!!

Not buying it, you lean left from what I see. See how you stood out?

 

Since you know zero about me or what I believe, again, I really don't care what you think you see or what you think of me period. It's not important to me.

 

Once again, I've read so many articles, seen so many shows on the subject, talked with so many people about the issue over the years, but it seems to be escaping your slanted, biased, 10 percent-er mind that I didn't just come to the conclusion based on nothing. But in your "open mind", that's sticking one's head in the sand. :lol:

 

By all means, let it fly. Don't be shocked when I don't duck, I'll simply flick it away.

Good luck getting the Chinese buying into this!

 

Well, they definitely aren't listening to their people, who seem to go everywhere with mask covering their faces when they're out in public because of all the pollution.

Perhaps you should read the article and not just the title.

I did. Did you?

"The Arctic will be ice-free by 2015 or 2016, Wadhams told the Guardian,"

I did. Did you?

"The Arctic will be ice-free by 2015 or 2016, Wadhams told the Guardian,"

 

I did. However, I think that what the title misses (and what your quote misses) would include:

 

The summer ice cap in the Arctic will be gone within four years, a leading expert has predicted, calling the imminent melt a “global disaster.”

 

Earlier estimates predicted that summer ice in the Arctic would last another 50 years. But the accelerating rate of ice melt has surprised climatologists.

 

'The six lowest September ice extents have all been in the past six years,” Serezze told NBC News. “I think that’s quite remarkable.” Sezerre said he believes summer ice will have melted completely by 2030—a slightly longer time frame than posited by Dr. Wadhams.

Is there any hope of snow this year in Kentucky?

Is there any hope of snow this year in Kentucky?

You mean like 2 years ago when we had close to record amounts.

Proof

^ :lol:

You mean like 2 years ago when we had close to record amounts.

 

Give me a link to that info.