Slow Bob wrote:
>>>>> Here are some simple signs reputable scientists point to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glacier national park doesn't have them any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Permafrost in Alaska is melting causing havoc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The North Pole, for the first time in recorded history has areas of
>>>>> water during the summer.
>
> i clearly wrote recorded history. We all know about the ice ages this
> is another problem ages.

Ipse dixit. The span of time from the most recent Ice Age to now has
been one of global warming. It is not a strange human-related phenomenon.

>>>> And in pre-recorded history it was ****ing frozen solid year-round.
>>>> Ever hear about the Ice Age or did you miss class at Columbia that
>>>> day, moron?
>>
>> HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO?

HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO?

>>>>> The consequence of global warming are disastrous.
>>>>
>>>> The consequences of your stupidity are far more disastrous and
>>>> immediate.
>>>
>>> Even if I were stupid,
>>
>> You are. You really are.
>
> which doesn't change my statement

Of course it doesn't. You'll stick to your lies even after they've been
shattered by overwhelming evidence.

>>> which no vegan in the group I'm sure would agree with,
>>
>> Appealing to popularity. And among a group of self-marginals at that!
>
> It is a vegan group.

Irrelevant. You're still appealing to popularity among a group of
self-marginals.

>>> just you trolls.
>>
>> Not trolls. I'm discussing the issues you raise and correcting you.
>
> It for vegans.

Why can't you write in clear, complete sentences?

>>> And if I were stupid,
>>
>> Established. You really, really are. You, Bob, are ridiculously stupid.
>
> No

Yes. You really, really *are* stupid, Boob.

>>> and the many scientists that agree that global warming is real,
>>
>> Appealing to both authority and popularity, after I've already shown
>> you polls showing that climatologists are split on the subject.
>
> The vast majority of global warming is from man made activities,

Ipse dixit and unproven.

> Show me a number of non republican scientists that disagree.

That's a strange way of proving your own claim. I've already given you a
link to a poll of scientists who disagree. They're not all Republicans,
Boob, they just happen to see either a lack of evidence or too much
conflicting evidence to accept the global warming theory as mindlessly
as you have.

>>> we are talking about flooding of coastal cities,
>>
>> Why the hell did you move to Tampa then?
>
> I don't lie in Tampa. I am looking at alternate.

You're posting from the Tampa area. Why did you move to a coastal area
where overpopulation is adversely affecting the environment?

>>> famine, perhaps a change of current to Europe actually making it colder,
>>
>> Good. Maybe that will keep Europeans from smelling so bad in the summer.
>
> Actually a simple look at the map show Great Britain for example near
> Nova Scotia. It is a scientific projection by scientists.

WTF is your point? All the global warming projections I've read about
suggest the UK will be so warm that it'll become a prime wine region.

>>> homes collapsing in Alaska, more violent storms.
>>
>> You left out alien abductions and increases in bigfoot sightings.
>
> That is stupid.

That is sarcasm, you twit.

> The .

The what?

>>> Many reputable scientists
>>
>> Ipse dixit. Reputable scientists don't make outlandish claims about
>> the future. Activists do.
>>
>>> say this is the future, and man made greenhouse gasses are the
>>> greatest cause of this.
>>
>> What have you done to reduce your own greenhouse gases, Slow Bob?

HELLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO?

>>>>> Statements about hybrid cars are generally bull.
>>>>
>>>> No, hybrids are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than standard
>>>> gasoline vehicles.
>>>
>>> The difference in fuel mileage is only a few miles per gallon. Check
>>> the stats. Prove me wrong.
>>
>> I did, Slow Bob, and I used an example which shows >43% increased fuel
>> efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions (e.g., greenhouse
>> gases). You make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein.

Established. Shit, you even make David Harrison appear reasonable. Do
you know how difficult that is?

>>>>> While the Insight and Prios are high mileage cars, the rest simply
>>>>> reduce the engine a little and use the hybrid to produce higher
>>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand how they work. Not surprising since you think
>>>> cattle reproduce at the same rate as rats.
>>>>
>>>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage.
>>>>
>>>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto
>>>>
>>>> MPG (city)
>>>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22
>>>> MPG (hwy)
>>>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25
>>>> MPG (combined)
>>>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23
>>>> Annual Fuel Cost*
>>>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494
>>>>
>>>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very
>>>> significant.
>>>>
>>>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy:
>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
>>>>
>>>>> Just a few facts.
>>>>
>>>> Not facts, you're blowing hot air out of your ass as usual.
>>
>> Established.

FIRMLY established.