Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[JimMorrison]

There's not any actual "flaming" until you use terminology like "pointless and baseless fearmongering".

All you had to say was that you had no possible way to debate the point. That you agree that it would be a catastrophe beyond your reckoning if even 10% of the tropical/subtropical/coastal peoples of the world were displaced, and/or if any significant amount of the far northern land that is becoming arable, merely mirrors a similar amount of previously marginal land that becomes unusable.

It pains me every time I see a human being who is so shortsighted, that they don't think there is any potential set of circumstances that they themselves might help arrange, which could completely and irrevocably change the world that they live in. It is that level of ignorance that leaves us with a body public who are mainly divided among 2 camps - those who would jolly drive us off of a cliff because they refuse to admit it exists, and those who have become too timid and numb to actually stop it from happening before it's too late.

[licker]

I stand by what I said.

Pointless and baseless fearmongering FTW!!!

By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...

All more likely than your doomsday scenario. I suppose you have thoughts on those issues?

[Tifone]

licker, your answers sometimes presuppose links in the neural network beyond human comprehension I can't understand really why you answer to serious, science-supported concerns about the foreseeable future, with FTWs and exclamation marks and unrelated matters and invitations to other users to "find other forums for that" (which would eventually be the job of the admins -who are also partecipating the discussion- , in case you missed the memo ).

-

On another topic, I actually think that krpeters's post was a joke... Thanks to Jim for having made clear the absurdity of the whole thing anyway

@ Max... are you auto-quoting yourself as a source??

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by tgbob

Looks like someone just cast Wolven Winter on the San Francisco bay area too.

Somebody has cast mist on the Netherlands.

By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...

I hope you don't seriously think that in the next 100 years it is more likely to be killed by a asteroid than by global warming or another form of man-made pollution.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

I stand by what I said.

Pointless and baseless fearmongering FTW!!!

By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...

All more likely than your doomsday scenario. I suppose you have thoughts on those issues?

All you're doing is trolling now.

In case you haven't been on the internet long enough yet, let me clarify for you - mocking me only shows that you are incapable of continuing with reasonable debate. This generally can only stem from one of two reasons: a)my assertions are true enough but you don't want to admit it, or b)you are out of your depth, and incapable of continuing with a reasonable and meaningful discussion.

[Executor]

I agree with Jim. Even one single small event can change the entire world.

[cleveland]

[Aapeli]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to keep track on this discussion but it seems that the topic has changed a little from the original. The overall pattern as far seems to bee Snow in New Orleans-> Global warming, true or false?-> Beer and how its related to dominions.

Either way I would just like to say that it sucks that its not snowing in Finland and I'm truly jealous for you people there. So far the only one to blame is global warming so I shall blame global warming. Damn you for not letting me skate and ski and sue someone for snowballs.

[Omnirizon]

I hope this doesn't get me banned. but I just have to say:

****Image removed by Annette****

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore.

Since you seem to be curious, I don't bother to debate certain issues on Teh Internetz unless some circumstance forces my hand. Global Warmism (and environmentalism, generally) belongs on that list. Religion and politics are the other topics I don't usually discuss online.

For an example of why, I refer you back to the highly-OT Bible discussion thread a while ago. I think we had a good discussion. My chief purpose was to dismantle a few stereotypes that the media has created. I don't know how well I succeeded, but I believe that I encouraged at least a few people to think beyond the cliche of evangelical Christians as being toothless, ignorant bigots.

Still, that thread took a lot of my time. Hours per day. The effort wasn't sustainable in the long term, and I had to retire from the discussion. Also, while we did a good job of remaining civil, the thread was starting to devolve. Much longer, and I think we would have had a flame war going. Better to let the matter drop before that happens!

To recap, I don't debate Global Warmism online because:

1. It's too time-intensive, and
2. People get too hot about it, so the threads tend to degenerate into flaming.

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you.