70 replies · 1,939 views
Apart from willfully misrepresenting poor old Sigmund and his theories in the most obvious manner possible, I would offer in response my full agreement that Freud did indeed make some extremely grandiose claims based on extremely spurious evidence. All of which sounds uncannily* like the machinations of the supposedly objective and 'truth-seeking' scientific method.
Go figure.
[* - crap psychoanalytic in-joke]
Doctor? wrote: You're confusing anger with gobshitery, and a passion for hyperbole. Besides, anyone disagreeing with this stuff has to yell to be heard over the mooing and bleating of the carbon cultists.
Fucker? probably. Little? anything but, I'm a superbly fat cunt actually.
EDIT: I'm offended, I present a masterpiece of biblical proportions, he wees on it, and HE gets POTW? Ref Er Fucking Ree!!!!!!! ;)
The public have spoken
Finally read the article... and you are right, he is a right fucker isn't he?
More droughts, more floods, and yet everyone is starved for water? I'm sure it makes sense in his own mind.
But I do agree, just the name Friends of the Earth makes me want to hurl my burnt toast all over a bunny. Enviro wackos are annoying and love to drum up a beat of craziness... too bad they don't let the science speak for itself, rather than these loonies...
Oh, balls, that's not even the article I meant, sorry, I forgot I post it later in the raving. If that one annoyed you.....this will make your blood boil, this is the one with the twisting of science. The article linked is some comments on the original run of the story (which make for impressive reading themselves), but in the first paragraph it links to a blog detailing what the original story was in all it's vile glory.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/briffa_yamal_mailbag/
It's stuff like this that make gibberish scare tactics like Gordo's all the more revolting. Ah well, at least he gave me a date to start asking questions.....50 days and it's all too late, you heard the man.
Something I wonder... How come the Global Warming Threat groups never say much about deforestation? Deforestation has been a constant associated with human civilization. Trees hold carbon, and absorb carbon. Deforestation has been theorized with some climate changes in the past by some. And it is thought cutting down forests may alter weather patterns, hell the science is no worse than the other stuff.
Not part of their agenda I suppose. Why not try to save some forest from civilization, and try to keep the integrity of rivers and lakes? Wouldn't this at least be something more substantial to start with than this political counting carbon emissions bullshit? But they are encouraging growing crops for fuel, which cuts down more forests and needs more irrigation and more fertilizer gets in rivers and lakes.
Possibly it's because mature trees process much less CO2 than growing ones (after all mature ones use carbon to make foods etc, but growing ones need it to make new tissue). So, while slash and burn land clearance style deforestation is downright bad, the now more common approach of managed forrest, chopping down then replanting, actually increases carbon processing by at least an order of magnitude.
Good thoughts, but carbon in live or recently dead trees are all part of the current carbon cycle, its not dangerous to us, its replacing carbon that has been buried for millions of years that we aren't acclimatized to.
I saw a recent enviro wacko trying to explain that landfills were evil because of the methane and carbon they released... same issue she was dead wrong.
What is bad about deforestation is the ecosystems that will be destroyed, taking forever to rebuild, an the remaining 15% of oxegen is produced by rain forests (plankton, foramiforas, diatoms etc. create the majority of it).
"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!"
Seems like an excellent chap.
Beats teaching lies.
Creativity etc cannot be taught, only nurtured.
Doctor? wrote: Seems like an excellent chap.
Beats teaching lies.
Creativity etc cannot be taught, only nurtured.
The quote is from Dickens; the picture is of an icon from 'Grange Hill'. He was a bastard.
A little culture can go a long way, Steve!
Clayhead Liberation Faction wrote:
Doctor? wrote: Seems like an excellent chap.
Beats teaching lies.
Creativity etc cannot be taught, only nurtured.
The quote is from Dickens; the picture is of an icon from 'Grange Hill'. He was a bastard.
A little culture can go a long way, Steve!
Did recognise Mr Bronson actually.
