Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 13:59:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2016 14:18:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 19, 2016 15:03:28 GMT -5
Yes, shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 15:05:34 GMT -5
None from me. He makes an excellent argument. Hard to argue people out of religious convictions that they weren't argued into, however. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 19, 2016 15:18:06 GMT -5
I wonder when, when speaking of California/SW, that the word desertification will replace the word drought?
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2016 15:23:19 GMT -5
None from me. He makes an excellent argument. Hard to argue people out of religious convictions that they weren't argued into, however. He's obviously studied it very closely. Having been there he hits all the marks. Looks like a great book to read. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2016 15:26:11 GMT -5
I wonder when, when speaking of California/SW, that the word desertification will replace the word drought? Probably when more folks stop caring about the global warming (or whatever popular moniker it carries) hype. Like the dude says, climate change as an issue is about 7 or 8 years past its "sell by" date. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 15:27:54 GMT -5
I wonder when, when speaking of California/SW, that the word desertification will replace the word drought? Hasn't it pretty much always been at least a semi desert? Without Mulholland, LA's uninhabitable by today's population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_MulhollandMulholland had a vision of a Los Angeles that would become far bigger than the Los Angeles of the start of the 20th century. The limiting factor of Los Angeles' growth was water supply, because of its semi-arid climate and unreliable rainfall. "If you don't get the water, you won't need it," Mulholland famously remarked. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2016 15:30:31 GMT -5
And then there's this. The alarmists are now openly trying to argue that having kids is immoral. That's where the sickness is headed. Same Song, Different Era |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 19, 2016 15:33:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 15:51:37 GMT -5
And then there's this. The alarmists are now openly trying to argue that having kids is immoral. That's where the sickness is headed. Same Song, Different EraWill they still want social security, I wonder. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 19, 2016 18:35:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 19, 2016 18:50:43 GMT -5
You can always take in some Syrians or for farm labor Mexicans. As I understand it besides you personally, most of Japan is overrun with Japanese people and not many others. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2016 19:26:22 GMT -5
Way to take one for the climate change team. Leaves more room for the rest of us to fuck like rabbits. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 19, 2016 19:47:11 GMT -5
Way to take one for the climate change team. Leaves more room for the rest of us to fuck like rabbits. BTDT. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 19, 2016 19:54:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2016 20:16:29 GMT -5
And we have the obligatory barely related attempt at third party character assassination that completely fails to prove or disprove anything that was said. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 19, 2016 20:31:52 GMT -5
Anti-science and conspiracy based positions cannot be argued with. So I don't much choose to waste the effort these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 19, 2016 21:10:50 GMT -5
Anti-science and conspiracy based positions cannot be argued with. So I don't much choose to waste the effort these days. Human caused climate change is anti-science. Speaking as a scientist (biologist). Not a pretend scientist. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 19, 2016 21:15:25 GMT -5
That article is stupid. Maybe. I didn't read the whole thing. The introduction, the great lengths to establish the author's scientific credentials, kind of put me off. So I skipped ahead and read the first question. Sounded like a set up to me, so instead of reading the answer, I skipped ahead and read the second question. Then the third, fourth, fifth, ... I don't know which question I stopped on, other then that there was an ad for a dildo. Or maybe it was a flashlight. Whatever, it made me think of Gary Johnson. I still hadn't read any answers, but because of the tone of the questions, I didn't have to. The questions were answers in themselves. Feeling like the article was a waste of time and not wanting to think about Gary Johnson I came up with another idea. I decided to go to Amazon to read some of the reviews. There I should be able to get a pretty good idea of whether the fans were conspiracy theorists and whether the critics were able to present well reasoned, verifiable counter arguments.
But no. Would you believe that this book was published ten months ago and to date it only has five reader reviews? That's virtually unheard of. Most or all of those five reviews were from family, friends, or other authors hoping for reciprocation.
Tom, Peter, did you guys actually read the book? If so, since you seem to love it so much, you really ought to post a review. If not, you really ought to read the book.
|
|
