The funniest part is that he and his disciples take themselves seriously. They really believe this crap and march and yell and caper like mad bears saying; "Don't confuse me with the truth."

Maybe one or two.

I DO think you'll grow tired of practicing your "debating skills against entrenched sycophants who refuse to accept any rational argument no matter how clearly stated."

Yes, useful idiots are STILL in no short supply.

Unfortunately.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

If the assertions you've made are true then I wonder why it is that The American Physical Society hasn't changed it's position on global warming?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

How is it that you conflate "an extent to which CO2 contributes" with "CO2 contributes"? It doesn't take any scientific skills to differentiate the two phrases.

Did I?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Then let's go back: Let us know the reason you ask Mahasattva why the APS changed nothing of its position since 2007 and why that question is relevant to the txt of Mahasattva's text you quoted.

See, I never developed my abilty to read minds, so the onus is on you to be clear. For clarification, let us know what you think the relevance of your question is. Do some effective communication.

You're not paying attention. One of the assertions he's made in this thread is that there's no need to reduce CO emissions, which is at odds with this portion of the APS policy re climate change:

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I see your panties are in a twist as I asked you to clarify a question you asked.

Does the APS' opinion on policy carry more weight with you than another scientific society's? Sorry for asking another question - it seems so threatening to you.

I only mentioned the APS on account of the thread that Kramer started, and no, I wouldn't say that they are more or less credible than other scientific societies.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

OK, I guess that finally clarifies its relevance.

Really?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Are you surprised that you were clear?

I just fail to see how my answer could be an adequate basis for determining the APS's relevance to this debate. I would think that that would have to do with it's expertise re climate and it's integrity.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Uh huh. But my question was the relevance of your question. You clarified and you were and still are surprised that you were clear. Interesting.

You seem to have no understanding of it at all. It isn't about "running out" of oil, it's about passing the point of peak production, from which point production begins to decline.

Please cite the discovery of any oil fields in the last 20 years that are appr. the size of Ghawar. Oh shoot, I'll answer for you. None. So when Ghawar goes offline, and it will in the near future as it's an old field and they've been pumping it full of water to maintain maximum production, which shortens the lifespan considerably, we won't be able to replace that production and the shortfall will be catastrophic.

So even though we continue to find some oil here and there, we are nowhere near to making up for the declining production of existing fields. That you think Peak Oil has to be reworked every time some oil is found shows that you don't get it.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I don't know... Reading through and checking the info provided... it looks like TSG has got his ass kicked in this thread.