Slog
News & ArtsSunday, February 14, 2010
News Climate Change Brain Teaser
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM
If the blizzard that buried Washington D.C. proves that global warming is a hoax, what does the lack of snow, pouring rain, and high temperatures ruining the Winter Olympics prove?
3
It proves that if I close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears and say "la-la-la-la-la" over & over again I magically turn into a conservative.
5
In the past I'd heard global warming would cause crazy cold winters in some places--this because melting glaciers cooled ocean currents. patterns seem entirely consistent with climate change/global warming to me.
6
It proves nothing, just like the record cold we had in December. One season of goofy weather a trend does not make, just like one drunken fall down vomit drinking binge a roaring alcoholic does not make.
Besides, it's supposed to snow in winter. If it snows in June in D.C. then we can declare global warming a hoax.
Besides, it's supposed to snow in winter. If it snows in June in D.C. then we can declare global warming a hoax.
9
If the lack of snow, pouring rain, and high temperatures ruining the Winter Olympics prove that Global Warming is a reality what does the record breaking snow covering the entire continental United States prove?
10
I'm tired of hearing that it's unusually hot/cold and that it proves/disproves global warming.
I thought the real danger of global warming was that the mean global temperature is slowly increasing?
I thought the real danger of global warming was that the mean global temperature is slowly increasing?
12
@9: It's called "global" warming for a reason. Just because WE happen to be cold doesn't mean that the world AS A WHOLE isn't warmer. In fact, if/when global warming hits hard enough to melt the ice caps, much of Europe and North America will actually get a lot colder due to the disruption of warm-water currents from the tropics due to the influx of freshwater at the poles.
Metaphor:
Just because athletes in this country tend to be about as physically fit as they used to be doesn't mean that the USA as a whole isn't getting fatter.
Also, it's been quite nice in Chicago lately (by Chicagoan standards, of course) so SOMETHING ain't right.
Metaphor:
Just because athletes in this country tend to be about as physically fit as they used to be doesn't mean that the USA as a whole isn't getting fatter.
Also, it's been quite nice in Chicago lately (by Chicagoan standards, of course) so SOMETHING ain't right.
15
Um, guys? Warmer air holds more water. More water means more rain and snow when it comes time to dump water out of sky.
17
Mostly it's just proof that people don't understand the difference between a data point and a trend, and that there are a lot of minds far too small to picture the complexity of something as large and intricate as the terrestrial climate.
And look, you stupid denialist shits: suggesting that because there are still legitimate scientific questions about climate change, there is therefore doubt about whether there is climate change is about as logical and as honest as suggesting that because there is still work to be done to understand gravity, there is therefore doubt that the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun. You cannot simply shift doubt around to lie wherever you want to see it.
And look, you stupid denialist shits: suggesting that because there are still legitimate scientific questions about climate change, there is therefore doubt about whether there is climate change is about as logical and as honest as suggesting that because there is still work to be done to understand gravity, there is therefore doubt that the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun. You cannot simply shift doubt around to lie wherever you want to see it.
18
17
Because there are still legitimate scientific questions about climate change Americans are reluctant to turn control of their lives and economy over to Al Gore and the stupid environmental fascist shits.
Because there are still legitimate scientific questions about climate change Americans are reluctant to turn control of their lives and economy over to Al Gore and the stupid environmental fascist shits.
20
These segments are about the east coast snow and not the warm Olympics stuff, but you may still enjoy them...
Colbert's take:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert…
The Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-fe…
Colbert's take:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert…
The Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-fe…
23
It means that people who want to continue forestalling action have a whole planet's worth of anecdotal evidence to cherry-pick when they are looking to bolster their flailing "arguments" against the established science. As long as it's cold somewhere at some time, they will argue, there can't possibly be a warming trend.
24
Vancouver gets warm winters every so often. This isn't so uncommon. A World Cup ski event in Whistler was cancelled in 1998 due to warm weather. Of course global warming is happening, but Vancouver's weather is no proof.
25
When was the climate ever normal? It's always doing fucked up shit in one place or another. Climate change is par for the course, and I really don't care about it anymore.
26
It proves @4, @8, @9 and @18 are trolls. It also proves beyond a glimmer of doubt that Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are evil propagandists in league with the Devil, gleefully sowing discord and confusion.
Besides that, both phenomena demonstrate that if you pump more energy into the atmosphere, you create bigger and more violent weather systems that can suck air currents from further away and dump more precipitation on the ground..
Besides that, both phenomena demonstrate that if you pump more energy into the atmosphere, you create bigger and more violent weather systems that can suck air currents from further away and dump more precipitation on the ground..
28
It proves that lazy media types, looking for a convenient phrasing, used Global Warming instead of Global Weather Change with resulting increases in both local and global oscillations and in mean global temperatures.
Why?
Because they're really lazy.
Just as lazy as the people trying to destroy the world by increasing carbon emissions by building the Billionaires Tunnel that we can't afford, when the lesser impacts and lower costs of both the Surface Plus Transit and the Rebuilt Viaduct options would be more prudent and less hostile to the world.
Why?
Because they're really lazy.
Just as lazy as the people trying to destroy the world by increasing carbon emissions by building the Billionaires Tunnel that we can't afford, when the lesser impacts and lower costs of both the Surface Plus Transit and the Rebuilt Viaduct options would be more prudent and less hostile to the world.
31
It proves that maybe Vancouver -- known as "Canada's Mediterranean" -- was a terrible place to put a winter Olympics. This winter has been nothing *that* out of the ordinary for Vancouver.
They even know they screwed up:
"He [IOC president Jacques Rogge] said the IOC commission evaluating post 2014-bids for the Winter Olympics now pays increasing attention to climate and snowfall statistics of prospective host cities." (http://www.ctvolympics.ca/news-centre/ne…) (my favourite quote of the Olympics so far)
Apparently they looked at Canada, decided that it's all blizzards, moose, and maple syrup, and hey that's good enough why look at the climatology? In the meantime, here's to more 13 and sunny days in February. :D
They even know they screwed up:
"He [IOC president Jacques Rogge] said the IOC commission evaluating post 2014-bids for the Winter Olympics now pays increasing attention to climate and snowfall statistics of prospective host cities." (http://www.ctvolympics.ca/news-centre/ne…) (my favourite quote of the Olympics so far)
Apparently they looked at Canada, decided that it's all blizzards, moose, and maple syrup, and hey that's good enough why look at the climatology? In the meantime, here's to more 13 and sunny days in February. :D
32
For certain folks, it disproves climate change. Those people also tend to believe that "never" is a good time to raise taxes.
33
It's still bloody cold in my flat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh76DVhj0… (A Mitchell and Webb sketch)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh76DVhj0… (A Mitchell and Webb sketch)
34
Two people already beat me to the "God hates fags" joke. But it also proves God hates the bleeding-heart tree huggers in the Pacific Northwest.
37
Neither proves anything. Only long term models prove anything. Vancouver, like Seattle, gets warm weather sometimes in the winter, and Cypress bowl frequently doesn't get any snow.
Climate change is happening, and isolated incidents prove nothing.
Also, I'm not convinced that the Olympics are ruined quite yet.
Climate change is happening, and isolated incidents prove nothing.
Also, I'm not convinced that the Olympics are ruined quite yet.
38
@31
I wouldn't say that this is normal. There's been about 2cm of snow for the entire winter (and was rained away the following day), and we usually get more than that. Something like 10cm (cumulative) over the entire winter :P
But it's okay, guys. We can ship in snow to the mountains.
I wouldn't say that this is normal. There's been about 2cm of snow for the entire winter (and was rained away the following day), and we usually get more than that. Something like 10cm (cumulative) over the entire winter :P
But it's okay, guys. We can ship in snow to the mountains.
39
Increasing extremes in weather actually should help to support climate change theory, though I don't think scientists would go that far. (Dan also meant to add "warmest Jan. ever recorded" to the Olympics question) I'm just trying to figure out how using one weather event as "proof" that one theory is wrong somehow supports a different theory-- what theory (to describe the facts) do deniers of global warming actually subscribe to btw? The most sensible of the bunch actually agree that the planet is getting warmer, but scoff when it comes to blaming humans for the problem. Do not be confused... OK you hate Al Gore, think economy is more important than climate, and like the idea of clean coal (which is being heavily advertised on NBC during the O games by the way-- irony?), and want to prove a point and be right. We all wanna be right, but you cannot throw away an entire body of facts. I see too many pundits "agreeing" to the warming facts, then get a crazy look in their eye as they tell us to "just look at the SNOW!" ... this is much worse than poo-pooing the poster child "evidence" of warming; Gore's melting ice, as B.S. because his side illustrates the truth, and FOX news'
one does not.
one does not.
40
It proves that there is truly nothing that that can be done at this point. Anyone with eyes in his head can see that weather patterns have changed. Anyone with more than a 5th grade education knows that science tells us something real and important about the world. But no scientific study, no horde of Nobel prizes, measures up to a standard of Biblical truth. It's over folks. There is no longer any way to stop climate change. We have reason on our side, but ignorance is simply easier. The naysayers have won.
41
the winter olympics are not being ruined. but don't let that fact stop you from claiming otherwise to make some lame @ss point you could make without so claiming.
42
It suddenly occurs to the troll that you girls don't get (or intentionally ignore...) the Conservatives' position on global WARMING (to borrow the Liberals' term...)
Climate changes.
Climate is changing.
It was changing long before there were Republicans and internal combustion engines and will be changing long after.
We're good with all that.
So Miami, Manhatten and New Orleans flood.
sad. (not really)
And the Dakotas, Montana and Canada become new Gardens of Eden. cool.
We'll adapt.
(Did you know the climate was much warmer during the Middle Ages? "Green"land? Vineyards in England?
Did you know the climate was also much colder back then? The "Little Ice Age"?
Climate changes...)
What Conservatives object to is the idiocy and arogance of EcoFascists telling us that if we do what they say they can stop the climate from changing.
Conservatives object to the idiocy and arogance of EcoFascists telling us that "the Science is Irrefutable". That there is no need for further study and no room for disagreement. That is so much a rejection of what Science is all about that I turn purple just typing it. The truth usually eventually wins out and I long for the day when the arrogant lying fraudsters are exposed and disgraced and banished.
There are a lot of reasons to quit burning oil. We hate being dependent on Arabs and Chavez more than you can imagine.
So why don't Liberals put away their pointy wizard hats and banish Al gore to his mansion in Tennessee and let us get down to business.
Building nuclear power plants.
Hundreds of them.
(even France has figured that out- they get 80% of their power from nuclear. clever, brave french...)
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs...
ps- you girls need to quit getting your world view from Rush and Glen. It's great for whipping the liberal 'base' into a frenzy but it leaves you poorly equiped to deal with reality or the Right...
More...
Climate changes.
Climate is changing.
It was changing long before there were Republicans and internal combustion engines and will be changing long after.
We're good with all that.
So Miami, Manhatten and New Orleans flood.
sad. (not really)
And the Dakotas, Montana and Canada become new Gardens of Eden. cool.
We'll adapt.
(Did you know the climate was much warmer during the Middle Ages? "Green"land? Vineyards in England?
Did you know the climate was also much colder back then? The "Little Ice Age"?
Climate changes...)
What Conservatives object to is the idiocy and arogance of EcoFascists telling us that if we do what they say they can stop the climate from changing.
Conservatives object to the idiocy and arogance of EcoFascists telling us that "the Science is Irrefutable". That there is no need for further study and no room for disagreement. That is so much a rejection of what Science is all about that I turn purple just typing it. The truth usually eventually wins out and I long for the day when the arrogant lying fraudsters are exposed and disgraced and banished.
There are a lot of reasons to quit burning oil. We hate being dependent on Arabs and Chavez more than you can imagine.
So why don't Liberals put away their pointy wizard hats and banish Al gore to his mansion in Tennessee and let us get down to business.
Building nuclear power plants.
Hundreds of them.
(even France has figured that out- they get 80% of their power from nuclear. clever, brave french...)
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs...
ps- you girls need to quit getting your world view from Rush and Glen. It's great for whipping the liberal 'base' into a frenzy but it leaves you poorly equiped to deal with reality or the Right...
43
The Liberal Treehuggers' superstitious anti-science nature worship also manifests in their attitude toward species extinction.
Life, like climate, is a dynamic changing entity.
Species die out.
New ones take their place.
That is the way it is and always has been and, in fact, must be.
Liberals come along in their arrogant ignorance and attempt to freeze the process.
No Change!
Change Scares Us...
If there is a species that only lives in one valley on the whole planet and that valley is scheduled to be flodded by a dam reason would say; 'sorry guys, it's your turn to join the 10,000 species that die out every year, been nice knowing you...'
Liberals, on the other hand, would stop the dam at a cost of $Millions and preserve the valley newts, as a testiment to their anti-science superstitious worship of (but total lack of understanding of or respect for) Nature.
Don't fear change.
It's part of Life.
Life, like climate, is a dynamic changing entity.
Species die out.
New ones take their place.
That is the way it is and always has been and, in fact, must be.
Liberals come along in their arrogant ignorance and attempt to freeze the process.
No Change!
Change Scares Us...
If there is a species that only lives in one valley on the whole planet and that valley is scheduled to be flodded by a dam reason would say; 'sorry guys, it's your turn to join the 10,000 species that die out every year, been nice knowing you...'
Liberals, on the other hand, would stop the dam at a cost of $Millions and preserve the valley newts, as a testiment to their anti-science superstitious worship of (but total lack of understanding of or respect for) Nature.
Don't fear change.
It's part of Life.
45
It was 80 degrees in Long Beach, CA yesterday. 60 degrees well after dark. Before you say, "Well that's just California" you should know that it really isn't.
This is a big wave year. When the winter swell makes it's way here in November from Hawaii we get warm weather and 15 footers at 7-8 seconds all the way through January and then from Feb to May we'll get THE WORST cold, rain, flooding and mudslides we'll see for 5 to 10 years.
Except this year. This year we got the cold and rain for 1 week. Twice. And now it's summer again and it's not even March. Trees even are blossoming-which is ultimately what freaks me out the worst.
Meanwhile, my older brother insists it's all BS because it's snowing in Kentucky. Huh? Branding the phrase "Global Warming" over "Climate Change" is apparently what will have been the death of us all.
This is a big wave year. When the winter swell makes it's way here in November from Hawaii we get warm weather and 15 footers at 7-8 seconds all the way through January and then from Feb to May we'll get THE WORST cold, rain, flooding and mudslides we'll see for 5 to 10 years.
Except this year. This year we got the cold and rain for 1 week. Twice. And now it's summer again and it's not even March. Trees even are blossoming-which is ultimately what freaks me out the worst.
Meanwhile, my older brother insists it's all BS because it's snowing in Kentucky. Huh? Branding the phrase "Global Warming" over "Climate Change" is apparently what will have been the death of us all.
46
@42: You, sir, are a dumbass.
Sure, climate changes. Sure, extinction happens. However, when we cause climate to change so rapidly and destructively or cause extinction to proceed at several orders of magnitude higher than its normal rate, then something is clearly wrong.
Global warming will not just cause coastal areas to flood and colder parts of America to heat up. On the contrary, the disruption of ocean currents due to the influx of fresh water from the melting ice caps will result in much of North America and Europe becoming chilly wastelands. We'll also see more powerful and destructive hurricanes and El Nińo/La Nińa; warmer water in the tropics means more storm fuel.
Also, Greenland has not been at all green for quite some time. You have fallen into the clever marketing ploy of Erik the Red, who named it "Greenland" to attract settlers. While its fjords were habitable, for all of modern human history it's been covered mostly by a thick ice sheet.
Making mention of the Little Ice Age is equally useless. Global warming is a product of what we are doing to the earth; the Little Ice Age was due primarily to fluctuations of the sun's radiative output.
The science is irrefutable so far. We are not saying that there is no need for further study (see how much research continues to be done!) or that there is no room for disagreement. What we object to is you deniers of anthropogenic global warming insisting that we must live on your ivory tower with you. When the vast majority of the evidence suggests that burning fossil fuels will cause dramatic and irreversible change, it is not usually a good policy to proceed under the notion that it won't. If nine out of ten doctors tell you you need to stop eating greasy foods, does it make sense to go with the advice of the one who thinks it's okay?
You are even more shortsighted than I thought, judging by your promotion of nuclear power plants. Sure, nuclear power is efficient and, apart from the problem of radioactive waste, quite clean. So, let's convert our energy economy to a nuclear system bolstered by wind on the coasts and solar in the south and west. No fossil fuels at all. It'll work really well, except we'll have no working cars. Until someone finds a way to make electric cars feasible, we'll need some sort of fuel; research into cleaner fuels and electric cars is key for this to work out. But research takes a long time to hit the market on things like automobile fuel overhauls, so just building nuclear power plants and saying "the hell with it" isn't a solution.
In conclusion: you are a dumbass. But can we see a picture of what you look like when purple?
More...
Sure, climate changes. Sure, extinction happens. However, when we cause climate to change so rapidly and destructively or cause extinction to proceed at several orders of magnitude higher than its normal rate, then something is clearly wrong.
Global warming will not just cause coastal areas to flood and colder parts of America to heat up. On the contrary, the disruption of ocean currents due to the influx of fresh water from the melting ice caps will result in much of North America and Europe becoming chilly wastelands. We'll also see more powerful and destructive hurricanes and El Nińo/La Nińa; warmer water in the tropics means more storm fuel.
Also, Greenland has not been at all green for quite some time. You have fallen into the clever marketing ploy of Erik the Red, who named it "Greenland" to attract settlers. While its fjords were habitable, for all of modern human history it's been covered mostly by a thick ice sheet.
Making mention of the Little Ice Age is equally useless. Global warming is a product of what we are doing to the earth; the Little Ice Age was due primarily to fluctuations of the sun's radiative output.
The science is irrefutable so far. We are not saying that there is no need for further study (see how much research continues to be done!) or that there is no room for disagreement. What we object to is you deniers of anthropogenic global warming insisting that we must live on your ivory tower with you. When the vast majority of the evidence suggests that burning fossil fuels will cause dramatic and irreversible change, it is not usually a good policy to proceed under the notion that it won't. If nine out of ten doctors tell you you need to stop eating greasy foods, does it make sense to go with the advice of the one who thinks it's okay?
You are even more shortsighted than I thought, judging by your promotion of nuclear power plants. Sure, nuclear power is efficient and, apart from the problem of radioactive waste, quite clean. So, let's convert our energy economy to a nuclear system bolstered by wind on the coasts and solar in the south and west. No fossil fuels at all. It'll work really well, except we'll have no working cars. Until someone finds a way to make electric cars feasible, we'll need some sort of fuel; research into cleaner fuels and electric cars is key for this to work out. But research takes a long time to hit the market on things like automobile fuel overhauls, so just building nuclear power plants and saying "the hell with it" isn't a solution.
In conclusion: you are a dumbass. But can we see a picture of what you look like when purple?
48
@42,
Nuclear power still requires fuel (uranium). The U.S. imports almost all of its uranium from foreign countries, mostly from Australia, Canada, Khazakstan, and Russia. We only have a tiny bit of our own uranium to mine.
Switching from oil to uranium really only shifts our reliance on fuel from the middle east to other countries.
So, nuclear power, while a good investment, isn't a solution.
Just sayin...
Nuclear power still requires fuel (uranium). The U.S. imports almost all of its uranium from foreign countries, mostly from Australia, Canada, Khazakstan, and Russia. We only have a tiny bit of our own uranium to mine.
Switching from oil to uranium really only shifts our reliance on fuel from the middle east to other countries.
So, nuclear power, while a good investment, isn't a solution.
Just sayin...
49
what does the lack of snow, pouring rain, and high temperatures ruining the Winter Olympics prove?
That Mother Nature is Tonya Harding's aunt.
That Mother Nature is Tonya Harding's aunt.
50
48
That's a good point.
We need to annex western Canada.
Just in time for global warming to turn it into a paradise...
That's a good point.
We need to annex western Canada.
Just in time for global warming to turn it into a paradise...
51
Saw on NPR today that MORE snow could be proof of global warming- because warmer oceans mean more water in the atmosphere mean more snow. Try explaining that to the teabaggers.
52
@47: What do you mean, exactly? And who's "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
@50: It's global warming, you brainless twit. Not "everything gets warmer". Even if Canada were to decide to give us the land (which we have NO claim to), due to the disruption of warm-water currents, most of North America would probably be a lot less hospitable. You know, that one glaring point I keep banging on about.
We'd probably listen to you guys more if you had the brains to spell things correctly. Or even to use spellcheck.
@51: Teabaggers are immune to logic, explanations, or anything that makes the pen mightier than the sword.
@50: It's global warming, you brainless twit. Not "everything gets warmer". Even if Canada were to decide to give us the land (which we have NO claim to), due to the disruption of warm-water currents, most of North America would probably be a lot less hospitable. You know, that one glaring point I keep banging on about.
We'd probably listen to you guys more if you had the brains to spell things correctly. Or even to use spellcheck.
@51: Teabaggers are immune to logic, explanations, or anything that makes the pen mightier than the sword.
54
Climate change deniers have their heads far up their asses: moreover, they seem to be confined to the "Anglosphere." Bangladeshis, Indians, Nepalese, those living in the Horn of Africa, the Inuit et al are convinced. Weirdly, reducing greenhouse gas emissions offers opportunities to save money for both corporations and individuals. (Check out Noranda Falconbridge if you dont' believe me.) I say weird because deniers REFUSE to take advantage of these win win situations.
http://connexionsandcontradictions.blogs…
http://connexionsandcontradictions.blogs…
55
If I had any trust that Allegedly was any more than a tea-bag zombie, I'd think he'd taken a page from Randall Munroe, but despite his self-idolization as a seeker or defender of truth, his posts here on SLOG have shown a far greater confirmation bias than I've seen in any scientist.
But the facts show that the carbon-dioxide content of our atmosphere just keeps on climbing, and that this has affected and continues to affect the albedo of the planet, hence we absorb and retain more heat from the Sun. These mechanics are observable, reproducible and not in dispute.
What we do not know is where about half the carbon-dioxide has gone. What's in the atmosphere is about half of what should be, considering how much is put into the sky from industry (which far outweighs the amount breathed by living creatures). Best guesses so far are that it's being absorbed by the ocean, which is in and of itself a limited reservoir. When that's exhausted, our lives will become interesting, indeed.
Thank you, Stinkbug for the cool links.
But the facts show that the carbon-dioxide content of our atmosphere just keeps on climbing, and that this has affected and continues to affect the albedo of the planet, hence we absorb and retain more heat from the Sun. These mechanics are observable, reproducible and not in dispute.
What we do not know is where about half the carbon-dioxide has gone. What's in the atmosphere is about half of what should be, considering how much is put into the sky from industry (which far outweighs the amount breathed by living creatures). Best guesses so far are that it's being absorbed by the ocean, which is in and of itself a limited reservoir. When that's exhausted, our lives will become interesting, indeed.
Thank you, Stinkbug for the cool links.
57
@56: Yeah, but it's not because of radical change to the conditions of the biosphere; it's because we let gay pride parades happen, right? You religious types are always so confident in your predictions, it's a marvel to behold.
59
The argument for global warming is predicated entirely upon mild winters in DC, thus, the abnormally harsh winter in DC completely explodes the theory (and let's remember theories are vague ideas anyway, the theory of evolution is just as likely as the theory that existence just sprang up at G-d's command 6,000 years ago and dinosaur bones were planted in the ground to test our faith) of human-caused climate change. QED.
Ergo, Canada is a hoax propagated by the Islamofascist left-wing commie media. The Vancouver Olympics are just a mass-hysteria caused by ergonovines planted in the water supply by the Zionist-Hebrew shadow government trying to steal our precious bodily fluids.
Ergo, Canada is a hoax propagated by the Islamofascist left-wing commie media. The Vancouver Olympics are just a mass-hysteria caused by ergonovines planted in the water supply by the Zionist-Hebrew shadow government trying to steal our precious bodily fluids.
60
Al Gore has been unable to comment on the latest attacks on 'Global Warming', as his home in Tennessee is buried under nine feet of snow....
62
@61 100% of your comment is misleading. The non-anthropogenic stuff is part of a natural cycle. Ours is not. If your smart, you'll look up the difference between a stock and a flow. But you won't.
65
more weather "ruining" the olympics:
WHISTLER, British Columbia—Ski officials have postponed the men's super-combined race for nearly a week because of an overnight snowstorm..
and venomspewingidiot - wtf makes you think #56 is a "religious type?"
no indication he/she is at all religious. clearly you love to rant and insult, just have at it and stop making connections to posts that simply aren't there.
WHISTLER, British Columbia—Ski officials have postponed the men's super-combined race for nearly a week because of an overnight snowstorm..
and venomspewingidiot - wtf makes you think #56 is a "religious type?"
no indication he/she is at all religious. clearly you love to rant and insult, just have at it and stop making connections to posts that simply aren't there.
66
@65 - actually, if you looked at last night's Olympic broadcast on CNBC, you would have seen the green mountains behind him to the north.
Normally, this time of the year, they'd be covered in snow.
It's pretty bad.
Normally, this time of the year, they'd be covered in snow.
It's pretty bad.
67
Do all of you "global-warming", "climate-change" types understand that for all of the science, pseudo-science, political correctness, etc, etc, that is out there, ALL of the projections about global doom are purely conjecture? They are ALL based on models, which consist of software written by humans, taking the data which are believed to exist, putting them into a model, changing some variables, and then popping out with an answer. #37 says "only long-term models prove anything". They PROVE nothing!! They're models, for god's sake!! I don't doubt that data exist which suggest a current trend upward in global temps. I'm pretty sure this may have happened before in the 4 billion year history of the earth, but I doubt that Cro-Magnon man had the ability to measure it. Lets all not overreact and go back to riding CO2 producing horses and washing our clothes in the river with a rock just yet.
68
It proves God hates the farce of the Olympics and the US "system" of government about equally - not enough for a plague, but enough for a holy inconvenience.
69
My thoughts exactly!
People who claim the crazy winter weather out east and in the south debunks (human-induced) climate change are only proving that they have not been listening to the climatologists. Either that or they know they are setting up a strawman and knocking it down, which is totally sleazy and insulting.
The climatologists and Al Gore have not claimed we will have less winter weather due to global warming. They HAVE warned that it would throw this planet's ecosystems out of balance more and more.
Btw I'm in Spokane right now and it has been in the mid 40s for weeks. Hasn't snowed here in about a month. Pretty strange
People who claim the crazy winter weather out east and in the south debunks (human-induced) climate change are only proving that they have not been listening to the climatologists. Either that or they know they are setting up a strawman and knocking it down, which is totally sleazy and insulting.
The climatologists and Al Gore have not claimed we will have less winter weather due to global warming. They HAVE warned that it would throw this planet's ecosystems out of balance more and more.
Btw I'm in Spokane right now and it has been in the mid 40s for weeks. Hasn't snowed here in about a month. Pretty strange
70
december it seems your knowledge of how science works is a bit lacking. Some pointers:
~ With the exceptions of pure logic and mathematics, there ain't no such thing as proof. Even the gravity that keeps you glued to your chair is only represented by a model based on observation of facts (a strong model, called a theory, as in the theory of evolution), but it doesn't make gravity true or proven.
~ In the regard to the conjectural nature of global ecological models, so it is for all theories. Relativity had to wait years for the conditions necessary to prove it were available and successfully utilized (granted, a war was one such interfering factor). More and more of the global ecology picture is being realized with each day as new methods of observation‡ confirm (or in plenty enough cases refute) such speculation, but we have a lot of data, and it is pointing to an impending problem.‡‡
~ Thirdly, the scientific community doesn't have much reason to perpetuate a hoax. As was noted when the hacked email release became the scandal, our secret Vegan Socialist Overlord Masters (VSOM) weren't revealed via the news. We don't own tons of stock in new energy. In fact, we'd really rather have had discovered there is plenty to go around, that the world's ecology is far more robust than the meager effects of humankind, that it will repair itself faster than we can damage it through industry. That way, you see, we can focus our time and energy on air cars, space flight and human immortality, on trying to put to use more power to greater effects. But as the XKCD valentines day comic notes, you don't use science to show that you are right, you use science to become right. On the other hand, some sects such as big oil have every reason to keep us burning fuel fast and hot, and they had the ear of Bush administration, whereas the worlds intelligentsia (including NASA) did not.
‡ You get, of course, that we're not relying on Cro-Magnon records of weather conditions during their time (or even the logues of the local meteorological hobbyists during the Medieval Warm Period, as tree rings and mineral formations serve as far better records of historical and prehistory weather trends. Most of our meteorological history is quite solid because we derived it not only from natural geographic sources, but confirmed it through multiple methods of observation and determination. While not proof, this does put our weather history for most regions and epochs beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course, not everyone is reasonable.
‡‡ Granted there's a lot of obfuscating false data that has been fabricated and produced by those who benefit from the current rate of fuel consumption, and will benefit further from the acceleration as we burn more energy to stay comfortable in increasingly inhabitable environments. As an example, Allegedly (@61) pulled his figure out of his ass, possibly because the everything's fine message is comforting to him, even if it's untrue, but more likely it's just because he derives his sole heartfelt pleasure from jerking SLOG regulars (and Dan) around.
More...
~ With the exceptions of pure logic and mathematics, there ain't no such thing as proof. Even the gravity that keeps you glued to your chair is only represented by a model based on observation of facts (a strong model, called a theory, as in the theory of evolution), but it doesn't make gravity true or proven.
~ In the regard to the conjectural nature of global ecological models, so it is for all theories. Relativity had to wait years for the conditions necessary to prove it were available and successfully utilized (granted, a war was one such interfering factor). More and more of the global ecology picture is being realized with each day as new methods of observation‡ confirm (or in plenty enough cases refute) such speculation, but we have a lot of data, and it is pointing to an impending problem.‡‡
~ Thirdly, the scientific community doesn't have much reason to perpetuate a hoax. As was noted when the hacked email release became the scandal, our secret Vegan Socialist Overlord Masters (VSOM) weren't revealed via the news. We don't own tons of stock in new energy. In fact, we'd really rather have had discovered there is plenty to go around, that the world's ecology is far more robust than the meager effects of humankind, that it will repair itself faster than we can damage it through industry. That way, you see, we can focus our time and energy on air cars, space flight and human immortality, on trying to put to use more power to greater effects. But as the XKCD valentines day comic notes, you don't use science to show that you are right, you use science to become right. On the other hand, some sects such as big oil have every reason to keep us burning fuel fast and hot, and they had the ear of Bush administration, whereas the worlds intelligentsia (including NASA) did not.
‡ You get, of course, that we're not relying on Cro-Magnon records of weather conditions during their time (or even the logues of the local meteorological hobbyists during the Medieval Warm Period, as tree rings and mineral formations serve as far better records of historical and prehistory weather trends. Most of our meteorological history is quite solid because we derived it not only from natural geographic sources, but confirmed it through multiple methods of observation and determination. While not proof, this does put our weather history for most regions and epochs beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course, not everyone is reasonable.
‡‡ Granted there's a lot of obfuscating false data that has been fabricated and produced by those who benefit from the current rate of fuel consumption, and will benefit further from the acceleration as we burn more energy to stay comfortable in increasingly inhabitable environments. As an example, Allegedly (@61) pulled his figure out of his ass, possibly because the everything's fine message is comforting to him, even if it's untrue, but more likely it's just because he derives his sole heartfelt pleasure from jerking SLOG regulars (and Dan) around.
71
Clearly a crazy warm winter here is the exception that proves the rule that there are no crazy warm winters anywhere.
Duh.
Duh.
72
there are plenty of 'researchers' who have a regular paycheck at stake on pumping out 'studies' that confirm the orthodox liberal eco-zealot point of view.
see as an example the walden pond 'extinction' hack job slog linked.
academia is a close minded liberal echochamber.
there are plenty of 'researchers' who have a regular paycheck at stake on pumping out 'studies' that confirm the orthodox liberal eco-zealot point of view.
see as an example the walden pond 'extinction' hack job slog linked.
academia is a close minded liberal echochamber.
73
Allegedly (@65) It's not that far a stretch for venomlash to presume you (@56) are religious, in fact, Christian, and quoting Revelations for 33% of your post. (Though it is a bit presumptive of me to assume you are male or human).
Since I'm in a bullet-points mood:
~ End times Christians are a demographic who would be inclined to deny global warming, since a) it could be considered to contradict their own interpretation of last days, and b) they often actually look forward to the end of the world (expecting the rapture, Heaven, blah, blah, holy). So an end-timesist might deny global ecology collapse in the hopes that it is true.
~ Another Christian demographic that might be inclined to deny climate change is the Dominionist sect, who believe Genesis is proof that God supplied us with as many resources as we will ever need on this Earth. (I will grant you, once we are a star-bound civilization we will be flush, but we can't yet safely get to Mars.) Heck, even Reagan and his boy Watt figured we could just start clear-cutting because God said it was okay (and the rapture was coming any minute now).
~ Many Abrahamic denominations (Mostly Christian and Muslim sects) actually have a direct animosity against scientific knowledge on the bases that some conclusions (e.g. Heliocentricity or evolution) directly contradict scripture and present a direct challenge to their faith (on the error that faith is based on the capacity to believe, not on loyalty, even in the face of fallibility. Those who are the most fervent deniers of climate change either have physical investments in the status quo, or an investment in opposing science in general.
So, Allegedly, it's not too far a stretch to assume you (in all your incarnations) are a proper god-fearing doomsday-wishing science-denying Christian, especially considering how you see depravity everywhere you look.
More...
Since I'm in a bullet-points mood:
~ End times Christians are a demographic who would be inclined to deny global warming, since a) it could be considered to contradict their own interpretation of last days, and b) they often actually look forward to the end of the world (expecting the rapture, Heaven, blah, blah, holy). So an end-timesist might deny global ecology collapse in the hopes that it is true.
~ Another Christian demographic that might be inclined to deny climate change is the Dominionist sect, who believe Genesis is proof that God supplied us with as many resources as we will ever need on this Earth. (I will grant you, once we are a star-bound civilization we will be flush, but we can't yet safely get to Mars.) Heck, even Reagan and his boy Watt figured we could just start clear-cutting because God said it was okay (and the rapture was coming any minute now).
~ Many Abrahamic denominations (Mostly Christian and Muslim sects) actually have a direct animosity against scientific knowledge on the bases that some conclusions (e.g. Heliocentricity or evolution) directly contradict scripture and present a direct challenge to their faith (on the error that faith is based on the capacity to believe, not on loyalty, even in the face of fallibility. Those who are the most fervent deniers of climate change either have physical investments in the status quo, or an investment in opposing science in general.
So, Allegedly, it's not too far a stretch to assume you (in all your incarnations) are a proper god-fearing doomsday-wishing science-denying Christian, especially considering how you see depravity everywhere you look.
74
Ureile-238. it's a huge stretch for venomdick to presume @56 (who is not me - seriously, wtf is "allegedly"?) is religious, never mind Christian. his or her entire post @56, since you do not appear to be able to read, is "we're all going to die."
33% of that would be what? 7 characters or so? "we're a" "ll goin" "g to die." which one comes from revelations again?
i have no idea what goes on in the mind of some of you regular posters. but not every anonymous post is from the same person. every anonymous post you read you think is from the same person, and some bizarre caricature of a religious person at that. i suppose it makes it easier for your small mind to handle the idea that someone may not share your opinion in all matters.
everywhere you look, you see an enemy. that's not my opinion, that's not based on posts i believe you wrote, but the one post you just wrote here at 73. i do not see depravity everywhere i look, but i do know idiocy when i see it. venomlash spews it more often than not. and your defense of him in this case is yet another example of it.
what's more, when you see everything through that prism of hatred for religious people, your analysis is faulty. you're fighting a religious fight. even if you win that battle (which, given your methods, i suspect you never will), the global warming/climate change battle will rage on without you.
you cheapen the discourse and do harm to the cause.
i'm pretty sure my post was scripture-free.
33% of that would be what? 7 characters or so? "we're a" "ll goin" "g to die." which one comes from revelations again?
i have no idea what goes on in the mind of some of you regular posters. but not every anonymous post is from the same person. every anonymous post you read you think is from the same person, and some bizarre caricature of a religious person at that. i suppose it makes it easier for your small mind to handle the idea that someone may not share your opinion in all matters.
everywhere you look, you see an enemy. that's not my opinion, that's not based on posts i believe you wrote, but the one post you just wrote here at 73. i do not see depravity everywhere i look, but i do know idiocy when i see it. venomlash spews it more often than not. and your defense of him in this case is yet another example of it.
what's more, when you see everything through that prism of hatred for religious people, your analysis is faulty. you're fighting a religious fight. even if you win that battle (which, given your methods, i suspect you never will), the global warming/climate change battle will rage on without you.
you cheapen the discourse and do harm to the cause.
i'm pretty sure my post was scripture-free.
75
Apparently Allegedly (@74), you failed to read the fine print.
And you're late, late, late to the conversation. But that's forgivable. Welcome to SLOG. If you look back on the archives you might actually learn why I call anonymous posters here Allegedly. Or not.
Unless you want to continue to be Allegedly, you have two options:
a. Fucking register.
b. Be consistent with your sig-line, and I'll call you by whatever the heck you want to call yourself.
But until then, you're all Allegedly to me, and you're all equally responsible for every vitriolic anonymous post that scars SLOG. That is the price you pay for the comfort, and cowardice, of pure anonymity.
Ergo, if you, personally don't want to be associated with the guy who does see depravity everywhere he looks, you can take one of the above two options. That or get caught in the crossfire.
Your choice, dude.
And you're late, late, late to the conversation. But that's forgivable. Welcome to SLOG. If you look back on the archives you might actually learn why I call anonymous posters here Allegedly. Or not.
Unless you want to continue to be Allegedly, you have two options:
a. Fucking register.
b. Be consistent with your sig-line, and I'll call you by whatever the heck you want to call yourself.
But until then, you're all Allegedly to me, and you're all equally responsible for every vitriolic anonymous post that scars SLOG. That is the price you pay for the comfort, and cowardice, of pure anonymity.
Ergo, if you, personally don't want to be associated with the guy who does see depravity everywhere he looks, you can take one of the above two options. That or get caught in the crossfire.
Your choice, dude.
76
For a POV from outside the Americas: I live in Israel, which has hot summers (upper 20s, low to upper 30s Celsius) from April to November, and a cold-ish (single digits in the Celsius) from November to April. We don't really have spring or autumn. It's either summer or winter, and the weather changes from one week to the next and lo! the next season is here.
It is now February. The temperature is 31 degrees Celsius. It has not been this warm in February since we started keeping track of the weather in the early 20th century. No idea what that means as re: Global Warming, just an interesting anecdote.
It is now February. The temperature is 31 degrees Celsius. It has not been this warm in February since we started keeping track of the weather in the early 20th century. No idea what that means as re: Global Warming, just an interesting anecdote.
77
74
hi
you've met Uri, I see.
yeah, he thinks all unregistered posts are from the same person.
and, while he can get belligerent about it at times
I don't think he's actually dangerous;
just deluded...
it's confusing at first but you'll learn to just snicker at him and move on.
think of him as the Slog's crazy old uncle mumbling in the corner...
hi
you've met Uri, I see.
yeah, he thinks all unregistered posts are from the same person.
and, while he can get belligerent about it at times
I don't think he's actually dangerous;
just deluded...
it's confusing at first but you'll learn to just snicker at him and move on.
think of him as the Slog's crazy old uncle mumbling in the corner...
78
Uriel 238:
Fiercely intelligent, educated, and funny. I think I love you.
http://connexionsandcontradictions.blogs…
Fiercely intelligent, educated, and funny. I think I love you.
http://connexionsandcontradictions.blogs…
79
@75: With my apologies to Homer:
"Uriel-238, breaker of horseshit."
"Sing, O goddess, the anger of Alleged sonuvabitch, that brought countless ills upon the anonymous posters."
"Uriel-238, breaker of horseshit."
"Sing, O goddess, the anger of Alleged sonuvabitch, that brought countless ills upon the anonymous posters."
81
Allegedly (@77) in contrast, is SLOG's champion duckspeaker‡, and you (@74) might hope to become his conscience or his better half; at least a proper justification for his semi-consistent use of the royal we. Allegedly does like to imagine he has throngs of adoring fans who are registered to vote.
And technically, the biblical quote @56 isn't necessarily from Revelations, as the original Hebrew is used throughout, from Genesis throughout, usually meaning something like the following Wednesday... Only when discussing eschatology is that particular English interpretation used. Christians do love their EOTWAWKIs but then again so do we science types.
‡ Doubleplusgood!
PS: San Francisco temperatures have been in the high 50s and 60s all week, during our cold snap season. Not that a single early Spring means much here. Last year it poured until May.
And technically, the biblical quote @56 isn't necessarily from Revelations, as the original Hebrew is used throughout, from Genesis throughout, usually meaning something like the following Wednesday... Only when discussing eschatology is that particular English interpretation used. Christians do love their EOTWAWKIs but then again so do we science types.
‡ Doubleplusgood!
PS: San Francisco temperatures have been in the high 50s and 60s all week, during our cold snap season. Not that a single early Spring means much here. Last year it poured until May.
82
I really want to smack people who use the term "global warming" - that particular bit of misspeaking just plays right into the hands of the denialists and trolls. The term is "global climate change." The global climate is changing. More extremes of all types of weather - hot, cold, dry, wet, tornadoes, hurricanes - can be expected pretty much everywhere. It's only lazy journalists and denialists who even use the term "warming." Yes, a warming trend in the oceans is part of it. Part of global climate CHANGE.
Language does matter.
Language does matter.
83
Actually, the term global warming has to do specifically with the increased percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as I stated, above, reducing the albedo (reflective capacity) of the planet, hence we absorb more solar heat, and the mean temperature of the planet's surface at atmosphere gets hotter. It's a real phenomenon backed by real science.
Climate change as the contemporary colloquial is about an increase in more tempestuous weather phenomena (exempli gratia, blizzards and hurricanes) due to more water vapor pulled from the Earth's crust and the oceans into the atmosphere. Blizzards aren't an example that climate change or global warming isn't happening; rather a string of years of mostly pleasant, temperate weather would, rather, indicate the models are wrong.
Doom, I tell you! Fire and brimstone! The end is neigh!
Climate change as the contemporary colloquial is about an increase in more tempestuous weather phenomena (exempli gratia, blizzards and hurricanes) due to more water vapor pulled from the Earth's crust and the oceans into the atmosphere. Blizzards aren't an example that climate change or global warming isn't happening; rather a string of years of mostly pleasant, temperate weather would, rather, indicate the models are wrong.
Doom, I tell you! Fire and brimstone! The end is neigh!
84
@82: Like Uriel-238 said, we call it global warming because the globe as a whole is getting warmer. But you are right in saying that more extreme weather can be expected from it.
Any person who thinks that some cold weather disproves global warming is an idiot; it's like thinking that an airliner isn't taking off just because the nose dipped a little for a second.
@83: "The end is neigh!"
Four horses of the Apocalypse?
Any person who thinks that some cold weather disproves global warming is an idiot; it's like thinking that an airliner isn't taking off just because the nose dipped a little for a second.
@83: "The end is neigh!"
Four horses of the Apocalypse?
85
Um, we don't call it 'global warming' anymore. Now we refer to it as 'climate change'.
Try to keep up, 'K?
Try to keep up, 'K?
86
85
and do 'we' believe climate never changed until the industrial revolution?
is that what 'we' believe?
and do 'we' believe climate never changed until the industrial revolution?
is that what 'we' believe?
87
@84: Alleged, are you really that dumb? Just because climate has changed before doesn't mean we should go about trying our hand at it.
Allow me to grenade the impenetrable bunker of your mind with a little parable:
Food will eventually go bad, for the most part. Does that mean that we should leave the refrigerator open all day?
Now see, that might have had some effect if that impenetrable bunker had any openings. But you are one of the most closed-minded tossers I've ever come across, so I shall instead sit near your bunker waiting for you to die from a lack of air holes.
And if you know your prehistory, you'd know that with drastic climate change usually comes lots of extinctions. There's a reason that we only have the tree-dwelling kind of sloth today, not to mention the lack of the kinds of mammal-like reptiles that bit the dust in the Triassic.
Finally, even change is not a constant. If it was, then the rate and type of change would never vary. Sorry, but you have just failed. Try harder next time and maybe you'll make me have to think to beat you!
Allow me to grenade the impenetrable bunker of your mind with a little parable:
Food will eventually go bad, for the most part. Does that mean that we should leave the refrigerator open all day?
Now see, that might have had some effect if that impenetrable bunker had any openings. But you are one of the most closed-minded tossers I've ever come across, so I shall instead sit near your bunker waiting for you to die from a lack of air holes.
And if you know your prehistory, you'd know that with drastic climate change usually comes lots of extinctions. There's a reason that we only have the tree-dwelling kind of sloth today, not to mention the lack of the kinds of mammal-like reptiles that bit the dust in the Triassic.
Finally, even change is not a constant. If it was, then the rate and type of change would never vary. Sorry, but you have just failed. Try harder next time and maybe you'll make me have to think to beat you!
88
Beware the equine apocalypse!
For fun and education look up the Holocene Extinction Event.
Allegedly, (@86) you're such a goodthinker you must bellyfeel Ingsoc like no other.
Please, Allegedly duckspeak us more of your blackwhite.
For fun and education look up the Holocene Extinction Event.
Allegedly, (@86) you're such a goodthinker you must bellyfeel Ingsoc like no other.
Please, Allegedly duckspeak us more of your blackwhite.
89
@88: You're 26 years too late. But it's still doubleplusgood.
Anyone who looks up the HEE:
While you're at it, look up "Ocean Anoxic Event", if you think that the warming of the oceans won't hurt us too much.
Anyone who looks up the HEE:
While you're at it, look up "Ocean Anoxic Event", if you think that the warming of the oceans won't hurt us too much.
90
#86 Which 'we' are you using? The royal we? The collective we? We as in you and I? The last doesn't exist, I find the overuse of single quotation marks pretentious.
I can tell you what I believe, but would not presume to speak for the beliefs of others.
I can tell you what I believe, but would not presume to speak for the beliefs of others.
91
xrist, urine-238 and that venomflasher guy are amazingly full of themselves.
hey, you two idiots - posting under some lame title does not make you any less anonymous than us anonymous posters. if you want to lead by example, then post your full fucking name, not some nickname. but the truth is, you are creating a persona. every post is written in support of that persona.
nothing wrong with that, but the idea that you are not anonymous is ridiculous. frankly, i have been reading this blog off and on for a few years and i find those who post anonymously have the most interesting things to say. i believe it is because they are actually speaking to the subject at hand and not in support of their online persona.
do what you want, but your comments are judged by their content, not by the persona you are trying far too hard to establish with said comments.
hey, you two idiots - posting under some lame title does not make you any less anonymous than us anonymous posters. if you want to lead by example, then post your full fucking name, not some nickname. but the truth is, you are creating a persona. every post is written in support of that persona.
nothing wrong with that, but the idea that you are not anonymous is ridiculous. frankly, i have been reading this blog off and on for a few years and i find those who post anonymously have the most interesting things to say. i believe it is because they are actually speaking to the subject at hand and not in support of their online persona.
do what you want, but your comments are judged by their content, not by the persona you are trying far too hard to establish with said comments.
92
@91: Wow, you made fun of our names. That hurts, right? Because, now our feelings are hurt, right? I'm going to go cry now, right?
I'd say "WRONG!" now but I'm not nearly arrogant enough to do so. Of course, that doesn't mean a whole lot.
Every forum in which I exist knows me as venomlash; it's a name I stand behind and take as my own on the Interwebs. If you want to reach me, you can; I will listen to any prick who addresses me by name, if not necessarily for very long.
You twits, on the other hand, lurk in the scummy netherworld of entire anonymity (rather than the limited kind that is just sensible on the internet) under the collective mantle of Alleged. If you make a fallacious argument, we cannot call you out on it because you can always say "Oh, it wasn't me, it was Bob Twockhingler over there". And clearly, your arguments being refuted is what you fear. And rightly so! Speaking of:
What the fuck do you mean by writing "in support of [one's] persona"? When I post a comment, I make a point or comment on the state of the discussion at hand. This is true of most registered SLOGgers (or even the unregistered ones who stick to one name), but hardly true of Alleged.
I suspect that your interest in the unregistered's comments is based solely in that you agree with what they say, since I have yet to see them make an actual effort to "[speak] to the subject at hand" instead of just talking about how gays are evil spreaders of filth. If my conjecture is true, you're really not making much of a point. And if comments are judged by their content, we both know who's winning on SLOG.
Why not register? We're not the Borg Collective.
I'd say "WRONG!" now but I'm not nearly arrogant enough to do so. Of course, that doesn't mean a whole lot.
Every forum in which I exist knows me as venomlash; it's a name I stand behind and take as my own on the Interwebs. If you want to reach me, you can; I will listen to any prick who addresses me by name, if not necessarily for very long.
You twits, on the other hand, lurk in the scummy netherworld of entire anonymity (rather than the limited kind that is just sensible on the internet) under the collective mantle of Alleged. If you make a fallacious argument, we cannot call you out on it because you can always say "Oh, it wasn't me, it was Bob Twockhingler over there". And clearly, your arguments being refuted is what you fear. And rightly so! Speaking of:
What the fuck do you mean by writing "in support of [one's] persona"? When I post a comment, I make a point or comment on the state of the discussion at hand. This is true of most registered SLOGgers (or even the unregistered ones who stick to one name), but hardly true of Alleged.
I suspect that your interest in the unregistered's comments is based solely in that you agree with what they say, since I have yet to see them make an actual effort to "[speak] to the subject at hand" instead of just talking about how gays are evil spreaders of filth. If my conjecture is true, you're really not making much of a point. And if comments are judged by their content, we both know who's winning on SLOG.
Why not register? We're not the Borg Collective.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (92) RSS