Clarkson rebuts doom and gloom from ?card-carrying lunatics?

[Blind_Io]

If a nuclear power plant put out as much radiation as a coal plant does it would shut down immidiately. the only emission from a nuke plant is heat, which isn't a big deal unless you pipe it into an underwater ecosystem, which is illegal. storing old nuclear material isn't nearly as large a problem as it was in the past, and the leftovers from modern reactors are FAR less icky. Reactor design has improved by leaps and bounds pretty much guaranteeing no meltdowns unlike the old reactor design we have which is basically just a larger version of what they stick in maritime vessels. also, you can put a nuke plant nearly anywhere, and they take up far less space than solar or wind farms, which funny enough, ecomentalists protest as well. Even a hydroelectric dam causes more environmental disruption than a modern plant.

the only reason these douchebags protest such energy is the name. maybe we should name such facilities, "hug the earth" plants?

That's easy to say until someone wants to put an above-ground dump of spent nuclear fuel in a lighting and flash-flood prone area on a fault line, next to an airforce bombing range adjacent to a chemical weapons incinerator 40 minutes up-wind of the city in which you live. Salt Lake City has been fighting the storage of high-level nuclear waste from New York for years now - and we are finally winning. They keep telling us how safe it is to store, so I say store it the hell in NY! We didn't get a nuclear power plant, we use fossil fuel and hydro-electric power - and we deal with the consequences - poor air quality at times and a large portion of our canyon lands underwater - so NY can deal with it's consequences.

Anyway - the fact of the matter is that humanity is nothing but a fly-turd on the timeline of this planet. We are a sparrow-fart in a hurricane. Even if we did irradiate the whole planet it would bounce back and continue on. We don't need to save the planet, just ourselves.

The planet is an unstable system, which is why it goes through heating and cooling cycles - that's normal. We have been on the heating side of this cycle since the last ice-age. During this last cold snap a large portion of humanity was wiped out, in fact scientists think that the entire human population today evolved from just 15,000 individuals. Even if the planet does cool off suddenly think about what that means for those who don't live in the industrialized northern areas of Europe and North America. It means rains in the Sahara, farming in deserts and food for billions. These parts of the world should be hoping for another ice-age. The oceans will receade revealing fetile mud for farming and more rains in equatorial areas in Africa and the fertile crecent.

You are worried about airpollution? How many tons of green house gasses are realeased from Kiluea every year? How about the vents in Yellowstone or the volcanic eruptions like Pompei or Mount St. Helens? All the volcanos around the Ring of Fire spewing sulfur dioxide? All the fossil fuels in the world are just a drop in the bucket compared to what the planet does to itself. What about global events like SuperVolcanos? These are global killers and one may have been responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs - in fact a large portion of the United States is a Super-Volcano - Yellowstone. No one seems to be worried about that.

We don't have enough recorded tempurature history to know for sure what the pattern is. We can get an idea from ice layers in the arctic but that's like looking though a soda straw at a mural. Right now all we are doing is saying, "The tempurature has gone up 10 degrees since I woke up this morning, at this rate we'll all be dead by Sunday!"

 

[jayjaya29]

I can't believe I am in the minority around here. Jeeze, doesn't anybody want to admit that we must change our ways?

 

[ishigakisensei]

Even if we did irradiate the whole planet it would bounce back and continue on. We don't need to save the planet, just ourselves.

THANK YOU SO MUCH! The obvious is lost on some people who would rather close their eyes to the facts around them because they...*gasp*...might actually have to do something a little bit painful in their lives like....*shiver*....recycle!


This is why this issue is a political one instead of merely a scientific one. Hydrocarbon industries see themselves as going bankrupt and thus have naturally begun a disinformation campaign to confuse people while they continue to make billions of $$$$s per quarter in profit.

 

[Made In the USA]

This is why this issue is a political one instead of merely a scientific one. Hydrocarbon industries see themselves as going bankrupt and thus have naturally begun a disinformation campaign to confuse people while they continue to make billions of $$$$s per quarter in profit.

Like I said I do believe humans are contributing to the warm up, however there are many scientist that also contribute climate change to things that are beyond human control.

Also give me some evidence, such as actual studies sponsored by hydrocarbon industries, give me names of scientist who were apart of these studies and who recieved funding to contuct these studies. Btw you will need to depunk all of the studies showing climate change could be caused by non-human related events, anything sort of that and your argument doesn't hold water, because so far all your post have contained is unsubstantiated claims of foul play and the not so clever use of a thesaurus.

 

[jayjaya29]

Look, we all know that climate change is a natural ocurrance on Earth, CO2 and other greenhouse gases cycle through glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in a interglacial period, but the amount of greenhouse gases are naturally going up, but human activities are accelerating the rate at which the greenhouse gases are accumulating.

Its plain common sense, you have trillions upon trillions upon trillions of gallons of oil and other carbon-based fuels being burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It has to have an effect on Earth's climate.

 

[Made In the USA]

Look, we all know that climate change is a natural ocurrance on Earth, CO2 and other greenhouse gases cycle through glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in a interglacial period, but the amount of greenhouse gases are naturally going up, but human activities are accelerating the rate at which the greenhouse gases are accumulating.

Its plain common sense, you have trillions upon trillions upon trillions of gallons of oil and other carbon-based fuels being burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It has to have an effect on Earth's climate.

I am not arguing that, in fact I agree, but I will refer to my quote in the previous page from a member of the Stanford University Solar Center...

Global Climate Change and Solar Variability[/url]]People may be interested in knowing that the variation in the sun's energy output has far more impact on our climate than the tiny increases of various chemicals. Eg. doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less...

Now this website was last updated in 1997, so granted it is almost ten years old, but what he is refering to is that there are things out there that humans have no control over and will take place with or without us and will have a greater effect on this planet than we will likely ever have. Combine that with only 100 years of official recordings of temperature and atmospheric conditions coupled with computering modeling, similar to the models that can't accurately judge what the weather will be 10 days from now let alone 50 years from now, I can see why some people are suspicious of these crys of wolf, but I do understand people rather be safe than sorry, and I am one of them, I am a believer, but the real questions is how and where do we go from here.

Because when you have these same sort of enviromentalist crying wolf in the past that led to such inane laws as the Endangered Species Act and such, many people, understandably, will be wary of any advice and actions that are not fully thought through. Like I have mentioned the Kyoto Protocal, great intentions, but horrible in execution. These steps alone will do nothing, and everyone must concede that all this worrying and expense could in fact be for not.

 

[ishigakisensei]

Like I said I do believe humans are contributing to the warm up, however there are many scientist that also contribute climate change to things that are beyond human control.

The planet warms and cools on it's own and has done so for millions of years. However, humans are accelerating the heating cycle beyond what nature does. This does not affect the planet's viability, only our's.

I must admit that I do get tired of the West seemingly getting all the blame while heavy polluters in the 3rd world get a free pass.

Also give me some evidence, such as actual studies sponsored by hydrocarbon industries, give me names of scientist who were apart of these studies and who recieved funding to contuct these studies.

A simple GOOGLE Search should suffice. The rest is up to you.

Because when you have these same sort of enviromentalist crying wolf in the past that led to such inane laws as the Endangered Species Act and such, many people, understandably, will be wary of any advice and actions that are not fully thought through.

Bringing up extremists to paint with a broad brush all those who are concerned with human survival is exactly what Clarkson does. I do not recall if I stated it in this thread here, but Leftist does not equal Liberal. Leftist extremists simply want to control you and your life using their cause celebre simply as a pretext. One can be a rational environmentalist/conservationist like

Teddy Roosevelt.

Like I have mentioned the Kyoto Protocol, great intentions, but horrible in execution.

Not a perfect treaty at all. However, when you have a puppet of the oil industry pretending to be president, you can be assured that absolutely no action will be taken to make a new comprehensive treaty. Their narrow mindedness blinds them to the possibility of being a pusher of the disease and treatment like tobacco companies have - sell tobacco and sell treatments to help users kick the habit. Money comes in from both ends.

...everyone must concede that all this worrying and expense could in fact be for not.

The science shows otherwise. Human survival is something that people should take seriously. You may not be old enough to recall the Soviet Union and the nuclear threat it posed to the US and the very real possibility of our anihilation. Luckily, that worrying was for naught, but one would be wise not to tempt fate forever, especially when this planet will be our only home for the foreseable future.

On a side note out of curiosity, would you be shocked to learn that Wal-Mart funds anti-union efforts? I ask because you seem to find it hard to believe that companies would ever do what they see as their best interests.

 

[un-dee]

A flight from the US to Australia emits more greenhouse gases in 14 hours of flight than if all the passengers on board drove a full size SUV 10,000 miles, essentially one years worth of driving. If anything cars have little impact when compared to the other CO2 and greenhouse gas producers.

Erm, that simply isn't true. You made that up completely.

Example: Lufthansa averages 4.3ltr Kerosene/100km per passenger

An average SUV does something between 13 and 17liters, a "full-size" one will do much worse.

Read again what I wrote then read what you commented on, I didn't make anything up and am a little angry that you would accuse me of doing so, especially when your comment has almost no relevance to what I wrote. I never mentioned anything about fuel consumption, I mention CO2 emissions, there is a difference, however I should have said 14 hour plane fight has a greater effect, since because of the altitude at which planes fly their emissions go straight to the stratosphere and have more than twice the effect on global warming than emissions released on the ground. And actually air flights creates CO2 emissions and signifigant non-CO2 greenhouse emissions, the so called 'carbon dioxide equivalent' (CO2e).

Now I can't find the exact article where I read what you quoted me on, however here is what I was able to find to both back up my stance and refute you claim that I "made that up completely."

Depending on who's numbers you use and what calculation methods, an average SUV releases 11 tons of CO2 a year(calculations from Bonneville Enviromental Foundation. Again using Bonneville Enviromental Foundation an 8000 miles plane flight (distance from Los Angeles to Melbourne) the amount of CO2e per passenger is 10.8 tons, so using those calculations flying on a plane is a little less, but take into account what I mentioned above that airliners emissions go straight into the stratosphere more than doubling the effect on global warming, so the equivalent effect is almost 20 tons of CO2 released when compared to SUVs on the ground. Add that to the fact there are a couple of flight daily to and from Australia to the US and other far flung areas of the world, so the effect is even greater.

Revealed: The real cost of air travel[/url]]Aircraft emissions that go directly into the stratosphere have more than twice the global warming effect of emissions from cars and power stations at ground level and, based on the Government's own calculations, the effect of the 2030 emissions will be equivalent to 44.3 million tons of carbon - 45 per cent of Britain's expected emissions total at that date...Aviation is an increasing source of climate-changing pollution and we must take steps to curb it now. Planes pump out eight times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a train. A return flight to Australia will release as much carbon dioxide as all the heating, light and cooking for a house for a year."

worldspy.com[/url]]Driving an SUV*: 5 tons
*10,000 miles at 18 miles per gallon
Source: The Wall Street Journal

The Guardian:How to clean up your act[/url]] A long-haul flight from London to Australia, produces 3.75 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person

5 tons of CO2 for a SUV, 3.75 tons of carbon dioxide, conservative estimate since I am only doubling this number b/c of the effect of being released directly into the stratosphere(and I am not adding the CO2e) you have 7.5 tons of CO2 from airliner compared to 5 tons of CO2 from a SUV.

I don't know why these numbers are that different when compared to the Bonneville Enviromental Foundation calculation methods, however the ratios are very similar, but regardless in each case airliners, in this example, do contribute more negatively to greenhouse gas emissions than driving an SUV for 10,000 miles and shows that I didn't make anything up.

EDIT: btw, this is one way plane flight, think of the effects of a round trip.

I'd disagree. I also can't see the point you are stating with that. We don't fly to Australia all year long. Most people do A LOT more car travel than they fly on planes (considering the mileage, too).

And how can you deny the effect of CO2 regarding global warming but afterwards you say the CO2 released by planes has the double effect on global warming (greenhouse effect).

Isn't it funny that it is a car forum where most of the people are completely sure that CO2 have of course nothing to do with global warming. Some people are just closing their eyes here. I don't think the planet is doomed, even with global warming, but I also see that we will run out of fossil fuels in the next decades (don't know how many) so i guess that problem will simply solve itself.

But the better we make the switch to alternative energy carriers the better, because we really need the fossil fuels to create... plastics.

[random corvette flame discussion]So when you add it all together, the Corvette is completely doomed. It uses up all the fuel so theres nothing its interior can be made of in the future.[/random corvette flame discussion]

 

[Made In the USA]

A simple GOOGLE Search should suffice. The rest is up to you.

All you have done is given me a search page of one member of the hydrocarbon industry, Exxon-Mobile, is filled with websites that are not the most credible to say the least, though I am not arguing that Exxon-Mobile is completely above board. But you are try to pass this off as if ever study that brings up the hypothesis that global warming may not be cause by humans as some corperate conspiracy, and you call me "paint[ing] with a broad brush." Man...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Not a perfect treaty at all. However, when you have a puppet of the oil industry pretending to be president, you can be assured that absolutely no action will be taken to make a new comprehensive treaty. Their narrow mindedness blinds them to the possibility of being a pusher of the disease and treatment like tobacco companies have - sell tobacco and sell treatments to help users kick the habit. Money comes in from both ends.

I am no fan of Bush, but to put the sole blame on him is absurd. Remember when Kyoto was first brought to the Senate, which was in 1997, mind you, it failed by an 92-0 vote with 8 abstaining. And the reason why Bush didn't bother to bring it infront of the Senate again, was because he felt, rightly in my opinion, that the out come would be the same. And when other countries agree with the US that the entire idea is useless when you have the two most populous nations in the world growing and will soon eclipse the US in greenhouse emissions left completely out of the treaty, the rest of the international community turned a deaf ear. Bush said he wouldn't agree to anything that left out China and India. The international community wouldn't have any of it. The Kyoto Protocal is essentially handcuffing the industrial nations while giving the Third World free reign to pollute as much as needed for their economies to grow, and on top of it all the Kyoto Protocal is not even working, for many of the nations that have signed it thay are going to miss making their targets. And it is not as if the US is polluting for the sake of polluting, we do have the EPA to guide our policies. Granted Bush relaxed the Clean Air Act, at a time when I think it was need(right after 9/11 and in the middle of a recession caused by the dot.com crash), but now that the economy is strong, I feel it is time to rethink that policy.

The science shows otherwise.

There is science that shows otherwise as well, and not all of it is corrupted by a corporate conspiracy.

You may not be old enough to recall the Soviet Union and the nuclear threat it posed to the US and the very real possibility of our anihilation. Luckily, that worrying was for naught, but one would be wise not to tempt fate forever, especially when this planet will be our only home for the foreseable future.

Yes, I am old enough to remember the USSR. In fact, I can remember like it was yesterday when in 1989 I was coming home from dinner and heard reports on the radio that the Soviet Union was bankrupt, essentially ending the Cold War. Also having a degree in Political Science with a minor in History, I am uniquely aware of the past and present policies of both nations. Though there are similarities in the two examples, the possible destruction of society being the common denominator, one can't argue that their missiles were pointed at us and vice versa, although that whole situation was a lot more complicated than that. But with climate change there are, and I know you don't like to acknowledge this, credible scientist on both sides argue differenting points.

On a side note out of curiosity, would you be shocked to learn that Wal-Mart funds anti-union efforts? I ask because you seem to find it hard to believe that companies would ever do what they see as their best interests.

Now again I am no fan of Walmart by any means, however living in Southren California and experiencing the grocery store strikes/lock outs, and looking at Ford and GM's current problems, I can't say I blame them.

I'd disagree. I also can't see the point you are stating with that. We don't fly to Australia all year long. Most people do A LOT more car travel than they fly on planes (considering the mileage, too).

You can't seem to grasp what this conversation is about. Do you understand what per passenger means? In the airplane example I give the stats of CO2e emissions per passenger in one intercontinental plane flight. That means in one flight the plane emits more than the equivalent amount of greenhouses gases and has a greater effect on global warming per passenger, than if every passenger drove a SUV 10,000 miles. It doesn't matter how many times people fly to Australia, if 200 people fly once, they emit more greenhouse gases and have a larger affect on global warming than if all 200 passengers drove a SUV 10,000 miles. I can't make it any clearer than that. If you can't understand this, then continuing this discussing with you is like talking to a wall. Also look at flight schedules from around the world, there are multiple intercontinental flights originating from airports around the world every day. While I am writing this and when you get around to read this, there will be multiple intercontinental flights already in the air.

And how can you deny the effect of CO2 regarding global warming but afterwards you say the CO2 released by planes has the double effect on global warming (greenhouse effect).

Wow...you really need to re-read what I wrote more carefully. I never denied the effects of CO2 emissions on global warming. Don't try to put words in my mouth. What I was saying, which apparently went way over your head, is that people who blame the automobile for all of our global warming concerns are short sighted and ignorant. And what I said about the doubling effect airliners have on global warming is a direct quote taken from a published news article that I give links to, I am only passing the information on, not making it up.

[random corvette flame discussion]So when you add it all together, the Corvette is completely doomed. It uses up all the fuel so theres nothing its interior can be made of in the future.[/random corvette flame discussion]

This subject has been beaten to death. The Corvette doesn't "use up all the fuel" as you wrongly put it and gets better gas mileage than any other high performance sports car with equal performance at a bargain price. If this statement encompass your thought process then please don't respond and waste valuable internet space.

 

[ishigakisensei]

All you have done is given me a search page of one member of the hydrocarbon industry...

You did not look enough. Hey, you're mind is made up and the facts be damned. Your postion is clear. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed. -- Mark Twain

 

[un-dee]

I'd disagree. I also can't see the point you are stating with that. We don't fly to Australia all year long. Most people do A LOT more car travel than they fly on planes (considering the mileage, too).

You can't seem to grasp what this conversation is about. Do you understand what per passenger means? In the airplane example I give the stats of CO2e emissions per passenger in one intercontinental plane flight. That means in one flight the plane emits more than the equivalent amount of greenhouses gases and has a greater effect on global warming per passenger, than if every passenger drove a SUV 10,000 miles. It doesn't matter how many times people fly to Australia, if 200 people fly once, they emit more greenhouse gases and have a larger affect on global warming than if all 200 passengers drove a SUV 10,000 miles. I can't make it any clearer than that. If you can't understand this, then continuing this discussing with you is like talking to a wall. Also look at flight schedules from around the world, there are multiple intercontinental flights originating from airports around the world every day. While I am writing this and when you get around to read this, there will be multiple intercontinental flights already in the air.

First: Watch your language, you can't just insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You seem to be completely ignoring what I said. But maybe it helps when i tell you again: PER PASSENGER most people do PER PASSENGER a lot more car travel PER PASSENGER than they do PER PASSENGER on a plane PER PASSENGER each year. The thing is that people do fly and also drive their SUV 10.000 miles. And the planes are as fuel-efficient as it gets. The SUVs aren't. It is not that all these flight go to Australia just for fun.

 

[Made In the USA]

You did not look enough.

The burden of proof is on you. It is as if you have never written a research paper or have had any sort of high education experience. I give published articles with links to the original web-sites, two of which include members from the Stanford University Solar-Center and the University of Chicago; if you are unaware of the University of Chicago's reputation they have had 79 Nobel Laureates on it's staff. Not to mention one articles has members from Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, which is apart of the Oxford Trust. You give a search engine result full of blogs and "whistle blowing" websites(I love this one is particular, #4 on the first page of the search results titled Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped by Exxon-Mobil Works, then on the exact same page of this article there is a rebuttal from James D. Agnew, M.S. Associate Seismologist from the California Geological Survey, completely disproving the authors assertions)and you are trying to tell me that I haven't "look enough," that would never fly in academia.

Hey, you're mind is made up...Your postion is clear

Obviously yours is. I read through those links, including A Chronicle of ExxonMobil?s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming by GreenPeace. While reading it I questioned my own sources and desided to check their backround and found that one of the contributors to the Popular Mechanic's article has been questioned about the way in which his conclusions where reach, but not his integrity nor where his research grant came from. So my mind is not made up, when confronted with solid evidence I question myself, and where it applies I can concede that I was wrong and misled and can change my stance on the issues, but you have provided neither.

I like this one passage in particular from Greenpeace's 47 page report...

A Chronicle of ExxonMobil?s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming by GreenPeace[/url]]Whether or not money from the fossil fuel industry can be said to have corrupted or influenced the findings of scientists in any way, ExxonMobil?s financial support has provided these climate skeptics with a voice and a global platform from which to deliver their opinions to the public. (p 14)

So it seems GreenPeace can't even say for sure that these scientist where corrupted by ExxonMobil money, and it appears their stance is that people who pose alternative theories should not been given the chance to express them to the public...ironic. And I am not defending ExxonMobil at all, I am defending the scientist that have nothing to do with ExxonMobil but are painted as such.

...the facts be damned

Apparently you don't have any, unless you prove otherwise. But you continue to claim that every study that theorize global warming may be caused by non-human events as some sort of ExxonMobil corperate conspiracy.
And you are trying to call me a fool.

First: Watch your language, you can't just insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You seem to be completely ignoring what I said. But maybe it helps when i tell you again: PER PASSENGER most people do PER PASSENGER a lot more car travel PER PASSENGER than they do PER PASSENGER on a plane PER PASSENGER each year. The thing is that people do fly and also drive their SUV 10.000 miles. And the planes are as fuel-efficient as it gets. The SUVs aren't. It is not that all these flight go to Australia just for fun.

*sigh* Notice that I never mention anything about fuel-efficiency, but you keep bring it up. This entire discussion is about greenhouse emissions, there is a difference, especially when the buring of jet fuel not only emits CO2 but CO2e(carbon dioxide equivalents) emissions as well. My whole reasoning for bringing up the airliner example is to show that in a little more than half a day of flying more greenhouse gases are released per passenger and have a greater affect on global warming than if all those passengers drove an SUV and released a years worth of CO2 at ground level. This was just to show that cars aren't the only problem, and in fact lesser of a problem when compared to other sources of greenhouse emissions. People are not out there calling for planes to be grounded as much as people are demonizing the automoblie. That is the point I was trying to make, but apparently that went way over your head.

And I am not ignoring what you have said, you feel that more people drive than people fly, and they are not flying every day, but they do drive everyday. However, it doesn't take flying every day for a year to equal one year's worth of CO2 released by driving, it only takes half a day, that is the point I am making.

 

[un-dee]

Thats the last thing I am gonna add to this thread:

I said people do more miles in cars than on planes and they also produce more CO2 in that matter. Even considering the CO2e emitted by the planes or how you like to call it.

 

[ishigakisensei]

Let us be thankful for the fools like Made In the USA. But for them the rest of us could not succeed. -- Mark Twain

I could never hope to write better than America's best known author & social critic, so I leave it with him. Made, you are on the losing side of history like all closed minded dogmatists cowering in fear.

 

[Made In the USA]

Let us be thankful for the fools like Made In the USA. But for them the rest of us could not succeed. -- Mark Twain

I could never hope to write better than America's best known author & social critic, so I leave it with him. Made, you are on the losing side of history like all closed minded dogmatists cowering in fear.

I have said countless times that I believe man is contributing to global warming, but that doesn't leave me close minded to other posibilities, unlike you, who seem to be led around by you ignorance and are completely unwilling to compromise. I have cut you off in every direction you went. You aren't fooling anyone; remember the Top Gear USA thread you caused to be locked, this is your m.o. You have proven absolutely nothing in any of your posts, except for the fact that you can't think for yourself. And what do you do when you are backed into a corner, you try to insult my intelligence, when its clearly you who can't back up any of your own claims. You quote Mark Twain, but it is you yourself who has not succeeded at anything, expect revealing your complete lack of knowledge and reasoning skills.

Good luck at life, because you are desperately going to need it.

 

[ishigakisensei]

Posting smart ass comments as though they were true in no way makes your fantasies real. You're a fool, and I care nothing what you think because you thinking at all is a miracle in and of itself. You cut off nothing but your own connection to reality. Thomas Paine describes you best:

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.

 

[Made In the USA]

Posting smart ass comments as though they were true in no way makes your fantasies real. You're a fool, and I care nothing what you think because you thinking at all is a miracle in and of itself. You cut off nothing but your own connection to reality. Thomas Paine describes you best:

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.

Mindless insults won't prove your point or strengthen your insecurities, because you still haven't produced any facts to back up anything you claim, instead you result to childish antics. And what do you do, do you go to internet quote pages to try to pass as if you're educated, is that your thing? Proving, yet again, that you can't think for yourself. And where have I held humanity in contempt, do you even know what you are posting? Now I for one do comprehend what I write and know from where I speak, you obviously don't. I have documented my reasoning, you have failed to. Actually this is getting quite comical. But two can play this quote game, but the difference is that I have actaully read Gulliver's Travels.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

This discribes you to a 'T'

I am sure you will never have the courage to bring this discussion back to any sort of civility, since you still haven't provided any facts to back your claims. So go ahead, post what ever else useless comments you can come up with, I am done with you.

 

[ishigakisensei]

Proof given: [urlhttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710851-115.stm[/url]

Gawd, I simply love proving you inbred morons wrong.

 

[Peter3hg]

Proof given: [urlhttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710851-115.stm[/url]

Gawd, I simply love proving you inbred morons wrong.

It's taken you two months to produce some worthless crap. Well done.

 

[zenkidori]

it's also a repost.