NY Times compares SimCity Societies, Inconvenient Truth

You would be cool if your name was Rernando Focker.

Wasn't elected, learn how the election proces works before spewing your ignorant bullshit.

He was elected. And I thought I did know how the election process worked. However, apparently, all you need is the person who makes the voting booths and your brother to fix the election for you and then you don't need all those pesky little voters.

or, you can claim that your supporters are too stupid to porperly fill out the voting card your party designed, and then as for multiple recounts until you dismiss enough votes against you that you win...

*rolls eyes* omfg, now don't get me wrong, i hate bush but its been SEVEN YEARS can you please drop the 'popular vote' soundbyte...

You're voting for ELECTORS, if you think the president is picked by popular vote than you should have paid more attention to your 5th grade teacher... or the country you LIVE IN... four presidents have been elected withOUT the majority of popular vote, so please just stop embarrassing yourself

Any other long rotted horses you'd like to beat? maybe Domino's should bring back the noid? Or Shatner should come back to Star Trek

@Synner

Wow...

I'm guessing that whole evolution thing irks you too. Stupid scientists! It's ok Jesus will show up next week and punish all us heathens and take all the good people to heaven. And there are as many (probably quite a few more) "scientists" who support creationism and intelligent design as there are saying that global warming doesn't exist.

Yeah, except the majority of supporters of the "global warming" theory aren't climate scientists. Religion has nothing to do with it. In the 70's (ask mommy) they were predicting the next ice age, had PSAs during the after school specials and everything.

Do a quick google for midieval warming, or arctic temps recorded in the 1930s, they were higher than today.

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean they are a religios loon, just better read in this case

fool.

And you speak of propaganda spreading.

A study of 200 Scientific Journals found that 100% found the the earth is warming faster than normal and that humans are the cause. That same study found that 50% of news stories reflect that fact. Scientists universally agree Global warming is happening, they are debating on how fast and how bad it will be. You can always find a couple cranks like in the "Intelligent Design" debate (which again, among scientists , is not even debated).

Now, if you want to argue about how we combat Global Warming, I would support the sentiment that our funds can be put to better use else where. Millions are dying from starvation and for only 1.20$ a day, you can feed a starving child. Malaria and Polio are disease that are easily treatable and are still prevalent. We should not ignore Global Warming, but we should be intelligent on where we put our money.

Again I'll point out to you that those people "surveyed" were not all climate scientists. What happened to the massive increase of hurricanes global warming was supposed to cause? Or how about the fact that the ice in the polar caps is thicker than previous years?

Too bad the Global warming crowd can blame warm or cold temperatures, more or less hurricanes, more or less rain and any outcome whatsoever on global warming.

That "survey" refers to Scientific studies, the kind submitted and peer reviewed and then published in Scientific Journals like Nature. They may have been studies lasting as long as 20 years, or the culmination of vast studies of ice cores, and they all show the same correlations. What I was trying to point out is that, like the debate of intelligent design, their is no scietific debate over wether or not global warming is happening, their is no debate among those who form a hypothesis, form studies, test them, and interpret the results. These people aren't arguing about it. The media is, becuase the media feels like it has to give both side an equal opportunity. Al Gore made the comment that you don't give media time to those people that believe the earth is flat or the center of the solar system. I don't like Al Gore becuase he's hipocritical and admits to factual errors in his documentary (see link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html

but if you look in that article you'll see that the only debate on global warming among real sicentist is about how bad it's going to be. My initial argument was that we should acknowledge it, but seriously consider how we distrubte our resources. You can always nit pick a theory (we currently can't explain the ture origin of life, nor unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), but repeatedly researched facts unoquivially support that it is in fact happening.

And I'm saying that unlike intelligent design, which is pretty much "debated" by religious nuts, There are a large number of scientists who oppose the global warming idea as a pure propaganda. The charts and graphs used to promote the idea have been doctored. The UN released a climate survey in 1995 that showed the mideival warm period up until about 1500, followed by the little ice age that lasted until about 1900, then released a new survey in 2001, which had these 2 periods mysteriously absent. They lie to obscure data to prove their "theory" which doesn't sound like the scientific process to me.

I agree with Synner on this one, and I'm an atheist, so suck on that one!

Seriously though, the whole global warming thing has gotten out of control. I watched An Inconvient Truth and I believed it, cuz, well, he had a really nice powerpoint presentation. But after doing some research, I've grown skeptical, and now I'm pretty much calling bullshit.

Why? Several reasons. For one, if our global temperature drops only a few degrees, we've got another ice age on our hands. Call me insane, but I'd rather see Florida flooded than all of America covered in thick ice. Two, "An Inconvenient Truth" conveniently misses the point. Burning fossil fuels adds significantly to global warming, but the real killer is livestock and our addiction to eating meat, which Gore never even bother to mention. Three, Al Gore lost to Bush. How in the hell do you lose to Bush? I was leaning toward democrat for a while, and I even voted for that useless fuckhead Kerry, but after watching both lose to Bush, I've lost any faith I once had in the democrats. And I never had any faith in republicans.

To be perfectly clear, I think global warming is true in the fact that the globe is warming a bit, but to think that it's going to cause this cataclysmic event ala The Day After Tomorrow is just insane.

Don't believe what celebrities tell you. They're idiots. Just appreciate them for all they're worth: their hot bodies.

Look synner, you keep calling everyone an idiot. You do not know more on this subject than everyone else on this website. You won't convince anyone that you're opinion is truthful and correct. You must know this. So what are you trying to do here? If you're just pissed and want to vent your frustration then go elsewhere. This isn't a place for you to do that. Honestly, you're acting like a three year old.

Because people like you will respond to my posts amuses me

is that includeing the 80% that just wants more funding?

Yes, because the UN has such a great track record, food for oil, preventing genocide, we should totally put all our faith in what those fucking morons have to say.

And I don't know where you get %90 of the scientific community, since most of the "experts" aren't climate scientists, but rather a different branh of study. I remember the COMING ICE AGE hysteria of the 70s, then it became the GLOBAL WARMING hysteria.

And tell me how sending 2 trucks around to carry my seperated trash is more efficient than sending one truck? How is using hazardous chemicals and processess to bleach paper, and moving the product from place to place during the recycling process save more energy than growing new trees?

Follow the money, the people wanting investment in green power have money to be gained by getting legislation passed, that's why enron went under, they were banking on environmental laws getting passed so they could cash in.

idiot.

Thanks for links to those right wing pro big business web sites... you have totally won me over.

I also like how you end all of your replies with an insult.

You must be a very happy person.

Why are you so against the idea we may be impacting our environment? Would it be so bad to stop burning oil and break our dependency from middle eastern nations regardless of the truth of global warming?

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagid=1344

There are thousands of resources showing human impact on climate change. But like you said you must be better read than the majority of scientists in the world. I would like to congratulate you on that, that must have been difficult.

Again, your propaganda is no more credible than my propaganda. The earth has had volcanic eruptions for millions of years that spill more toxins into the air than all of the automobiles ever made, yet no catastrophic end has come because of it. If you seriously think that putting a lower wattage bulb in your lamp saves the earth, more power to you, just quit being offended when others mtell you to piss off and quit trying to run their lives

Here is one from a US senator, too bad I'm sure all you "enlightened" climate geniuses will just dismiss him as a righ wing loon too. since that's the best way to argue your opinion, just shout down or call your opponents names.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm

Synner, thats been the lefts way of "proving" their point since the MacCatrthy era.

Dammit, that affect/effect error is contagious...

No, it's more simple than that. I just don't care. If it is such a crisis, science and industry will come up with a solution, just like they did to cmallpox, polio, and they would have to malaria if you trehugging morons didn't cry so much about DDT.

Nuclear power is clean and safe, yet environmental fools are totally against it, why? Because then they couldn't run around in their birkenstocks trying to point their sanctimonious fingers at everyone else.

And for the record Mt Pinatobe erupted and spewed more toxic fumes and greenhouse gasses intothe atmosphere in its one eruption than all the cars made from 1910-2000, thanks for playing.

Dammit, make that Pinatoba, I suck at typing, guess that makes my answers automatically wrong according to some here.

Too bad half of the "science" in the movie is disproven. The "hockey Stick" model has been proven false and that movie "inconveniently and untruthfully" forgets to mention the mideival warm period and the warming that occured in the 1930's where temps were higher than today.

Buying in to propagandist crap is sooo cool!! putting my trash into different colored bins, so they can send twice as many trucks around to pick it up and use chemicals that are more hazardous than just growing new trees to recycle paper is awesome!!!!

Not actually looking at climate data, but following the media that was predicting an ice age 30 years ago, preceeded by another warming before that preceeded again by an ice age makes you seem so smart.

Because you can't spell environmentalist without "mental"