Unidian wrote:Quite queer? LOL...
I think I won't respond to discourse at the level of Gene Ray.
Please, give poor Gene some credit!
Global warming/cooling is not a "new normal" it is an old process which the earth goes through over and over again.
The medieval warm period, the "little ice age" the cooling of 535-536 A.D - the mass exodus'es to Rome due to climate changes.. on and on and on.
Good gracious, he even got [Sue] to call herself a man. You have to know she wouldn't have done that if not for this "woman" philosophy, so you know that is not an example of thinking for herself - so ironically, by calling herself a man, she exhibits "woman" as bad as the worst of them. What a puppy.
David Quinn wrote:
It's funny, but Sue has often been mistaken for a man ever since I have known her. For example, shopkeepers would often address her as "sir", and little kids would often wonder loudly to their parents, "why is that man wearing a skirt?".
Which is the more repulsive? A woman who mindlessly apes a man and reflects everything he values? Or a woman who is genuinely mannish?
Does her face look more like a man's David? I'm just curious, maybe it's physiognamy.
What a crock of shit. Men are *sometimes* more solitary---if they have no gang or group of their own. That isn't the norm. Men are vastly more people-oriented; sports, ---shit, look at any job that needs to be done fast and correctly, and you'll find a group of men working intuitively together, while women gibber and chatter and do nothing.
(Christ, what people could learn by being out living life rather than learning of others in textbooks...)
Men do. Women talk. Men toss balls around with one another in a field---women bicker over prices at the shoe store. They twitter and stuff their faces with chocolate and hang out in malls having fun. Object-obsessed---the "group" around them is a herd. Ego-obsessed. Safety in numbers. Extra girls = extra mirrors to see themselves and be utterly sure they're extra-special pretty today...
(Women are herbivores---even information-wise. They gather it and either process it or find a reason to dismiss it. They create absolutely nothing, do they? Some with balls do, but that's rare.)
It takes a great coach to get a group of females, for sports for example, to stop whining long enough, crying and hissing long enough, boob-size-and-ass-size-measuring long enough, to be clear about a single task and work well as a team to get it the hell done. A fuckload of a lot of work and great coaching. Christ, look at a reality TV show (perfect glimpse into women collectively in society; micro-cosmic example), or any group of females in a mall trying to decide to do something. Yap yap, plot, scheme, teehee, trying to organize, delegate---and not do.
Meanwhile, men do it. Just fucking do it. Quickly, actively, aggressively, all in a team of people; faster than words. Faster than deliberation---intuition: a vastly, overwhelmingly "masculine trait." Or right-brainedness.
Naturally, men work well with others. That doesn't make them inherently individualistic; that is incidental. Masculism or right-brainedness does simplify, "less-is-better" of course, but it's more often a small pack for men. A squad. Team. Gang. Whichever.
There is no debate about this among credible scientists.
and a few posts above the above linkCarl G wrote:Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Carl G wrote:Or haven't you heard that global warming is a natural cyclic occurrence?
At least partially disagreeing with Carl on that point. Although there is a cycle where the globe warms and cools, we are leaping out of the natural parameters of that cycle. Ignoring that is like leaving someone in a burning building because he had a fever anyway.
Probably subject for a separate thread.
Carl G wrote:If you have evidence to the contrary -- showing that global warming is chiefly a human-caused phenomenon -- please post it.
emphasis addedElizabeth Isabelle wrote:here, with graphs and charts you can see the real deal on global warming, including the links between human activity and global warming under point 2.
2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 0 guests