Alex Jones Vs. Rothschild: The Best Global Warming Debate in History - page 2.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Kettenmonster on April 07, 2012, 11:55:01 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on April 06, 2012, 05:18:44 PM

That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts.

Whatever a fact might be and where audience references to.
Just be aware, that different brains might work differently on different assumptions.

The Earth's climate isn't going to respond to ignorance.

Kettenmonster

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}

Quote from: FirstAscent on April 06, 2012, 05:18:44 PM

That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts.

Whatever a fact might be and where audience references to.
Just be aware, that different brains might work differently on different assumptions.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: RodeoX on April 06, 2012, 05:34:10 PM

So two guys yell at each other while the Earth slowly becomes Venus? Got it.

Don't do that.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

So two guys yell at each other while the Earth slowly becomes Venus? Got it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Kettenmonster on April 06, 2012, 03:55:56 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on April 06, 2012, 03:11:39 PM

Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.

... uhm if you take a look back in the past few hundreds of thousands of years, you can easily see: The next ice age is just about to come.

That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts. Do you understand Milankovitch Cycles and how they affect the periodicity of ice ages? I doubt it, but you're actually correct, dude! An ice age is coming. Which means the global rise in temperature over the past one hundred years must not be because of ice age cycles, huh?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: terrytibbs on April 05, 2012, 01:05:38 AM

"long while"

+1

@OP: nobody likes you(not even your mom), go away.

Kettenmonster

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}

Quote from: FirstAscent on April 06, 2012, 03:11:39 PM

Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.

... uhm if you take a look back in the past few hundreds of thousands of years, you can easily see: The next ice age is just about to come.

So now ... get this related to tobacco, oil or any whatevernamed Institute.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TECSHARE on April 06, 2012, 01:04:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on April 06, 2012, 11:23:56 AM

Quote from: benjamindees on April 05, 2012, 05:58:41 PM

It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.

I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises.

Exclusive statements are often proven to be false. You approach the topic with almost religious faith and equivalent disgust for nonbelievers. This is the "scientific" form of religion, and you practice it faithfully.

Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: FirstAscent on April 06, 2012, 11:23:56 AM

Quote from: benjamindees on April 05, 2012, 05:58:41 PM

It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.

I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises.

Exclusive statements are often proven to be false. You approach the topic with almost religious faith and equivalent disgust for nonbelievers. This is the "scientific" form of religion, and you practice it faithfully.

zionist shill

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Fantastic topic and video.

because there's a war on for your mind.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: benjamindees on April 05, 2012, 05:58:41 PM

It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.

I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't know whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises.

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Can I get the two sentence synopsis?

terrytibbs

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 501

"long while"

Jon

donator

Activity: 98

Merit: 12

No Gods; No Masters; Only You

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4891699310483983031

The son of a trillionaire banking family vs. Alex Jones

Topic: Alex Jones Vs. Rothschild: The Best Global Warming Debate in History - page 2. (Read 2387 times)