User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 169

Thread: Nature is ignoring climate alarmists’ predictions

  1. #121
    Points: 43,595, Level: 51
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 1,655
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10174
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,645
    Points
    43,595
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,165x in 6,408 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    That's the actual triggered stupidity that inhibits real climate change problematic.

    Man made climate change is not a meme, it's real. There are a lot of real environmental issues at play and you can choose to support your position on them with memes or with facts.

    I know I'm wasting my time here too, useful idiots are useful. Be content that you are useful if it means anything to you.
    Speaking of useful idiots. The alarmism is created based on the least possible climate model RCP8.5. The IPCC counters much of the alarmist claims which are supposed to happen in the future according to the IPCC but the alarmists attribute to it as the cause of every weather event today. One should have a clue after all the failed alarmist predictions. Some people will believe anything.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hoosier8 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (07-10-2019),Peter1469 (07-10-2019)

  3. #122
    Points: 21,530, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 420
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Collateral Damage's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6815
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    8,048
    Points
    21,530
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    11,707
    Thanked 6,805x in 4,162 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Like most of your posts, that makes no sense at all. How does accurately describing the effects of CO2 on plant growth make me look bad?
    I get it. If it wasn't fed to you on a conspiracy blog, you don't know it. Thus, you know next to nothing.
    Your comment on CO2 effects on trees and crops... how unlearned could it be? Your statement is NOT accurate.... but I believe you already know that.
    I'm smart and well-informed, so I know you're peddling nonsense, for exactly the same reasons I know flat-earthers are peddling nonsense. Your bluffing has no effect with me, because I know it's all nonsense, and you can't back it up.
    I'm well informed also on this topic, so since you are the one who makes the claim, you need to back it up with reputable sites. I highly doubt you can, but for the entertainment value please try.
    Do you have any sort of point to make here, other than how butthurt you are over me busting you for being a know-nothing BS artist?
    Good grief, need I feed back to you your own post? Offering to tutor me at $50 and hour is about as hysterical as it gets, continued entertainment for sure. You busted nothing, so I suggest you re-learn what you claim to know.
    If you've got something to contribute here on the topic, now would be the time. Or you can just keep pouting at me.
    I've contributed more correct data than you, but since you seem to think you 'know something', tell us, why is it so detrimental to the environment to clear cut multiple acres of forests? Why do cities plant trees along highways?

    That should keep you busy for days, I'm sure.
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

  4. #123
    Points: 11,596, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1080
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,513
    Points
    11,596
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    15
    Thanked 1,071x in 788 Posts
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Collateral Damage View Post
    Your comment on CO2 effects on trees and crops... how unlearned could it be? Your statement is NOT accurate.... but I believe you already know that.
    It was accurate. The basic problem is that you're uninformed, but you don't understand that, because you've never been informed of the basics.

    Here are a few quick examples. There are many more. As this addresses more advanced topics, it won't require the tutoring fee.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/c...l-warming.html
    ---
    In recent years, though, researchers have begun to realize that the extra carbon dioxide that humanity is pumping into the atmosphere isn’t just warming the planet, it’s also making some of our most important crops less nutritious by changing their chemical makeup and diluting vitamins and minerals.
    ---

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/m...29weeds-t.html
    ---
    Not only did the weeds grow much larger in hotter, CO2-enriched plots — a weed called lambs-quarters, or Chenopodium album, grew to an impressive 6 to 8 feet on the farm but to a frightening 10 to 12 feet in the city — but the urban, futuristic weeds also produced more pollen. Even more alarming was the way that the increased heat and CO2 accelerated and perverted the succession of species within the plots. Typically, a cleared area in the Eastern United States, if left to itself, returns to native woodland. This process varies with the site and circumstances, but in its archetypical form fast-growing annual weeds cover the soil first, playing the role of what ecologists classify as “pioneer plants.” These gradually give way to longer-lived perennial weeds, which are in turn replaced by shrubs and trees.


    In the natural version of this process, the pioneers and their successors are species indigenous to the area, and the woodland’s restoration takes decades. But what Ziska observed in his urban plots was ecology on amphetamines, a nearly completed succession to trees by the end of five years, with a domination by invasive weed trees of the most troublesome sort: ailanthus, Norway maples and mulberries. Five years after the creation of the plots, the biggest ailanthus in the rural test site measured about five feet tall. The city site boasted a 20-footer. The suburban plot was following the city’s lead, though it lagged a couple of years behind.



    https://www.everydayhealth.com/poiso...vy-more-toxic/
    ---
    In a 2006 study, a team led by Duke University researchers pumped extra CO2 over three plots in a North Carolina pine forest. Over a six-year period in a CO2-enriched environment, poison ivy grew larger leaves and produced a more toxic form of the sap oil, urushiol, that causes the allergic reactions. Researchers found that while the average tree grew about 8 percent faster in the CO2-enriched area, poison ivy sprouted 149 percent faster than it would have under normal carbon dioxide conditions.


    That’s because of photosynthesis. Trees use up some of the carbohydrates building their support structures, such as trunks, bark, and branches. But vines don’t waste their energy, and use trees, fences, and other structures for support, enabling them to grow more leafy surfaces. This allows them to consume more CO2, making more plant food, which then creates more CO2-absorbing leaves, in a continual positive feedback loop.

    ---
    Offering to tutor me at $50 and hour is about as hysterical as it gets, continued entertainment for sure.
    True. Given the degree of hostility towards learning that you've displayed, and given how good I am, $50/hr was a laughably low offer. To compensate for my frustration, I'll have to raise that to $100/hr.

    I've contributed more correct data than you,
    Not possible, as "zero" can't be more than anything. All you've contributed is unsupported assertions, most of them incorrect.

    but since you seem to think you 'know something', tell us, why is it so detrimental to the environment to clear cut multiple acres of forests? Why do cities plant trees along highways.
    As that has nothing to do with anything I've talked about, that does fall under "Explaining the basics to you", and would thus require payment up front.

    If you've got a point to make there, then state it outright. Don't keep asking me to make your point for you. If you can't make a point yourself, just say so. Trying to play gotcha-question-games with me just makes you look even more evasive.

  5. #124
    Points: 21,530, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 420
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Collateral Damage's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6815
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    8,048
    Points
    21,530
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    11,707
    Thanked 6,805x in 4,162 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    It was accurate. The basic problem is that you're uninformed, but you don't understand that, because you've never been informed of the basics.
    Here are a few quick examples. There are many more. As this addresses more advanced topics, it won't require the tutoring fee.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/c...l-warming.html
    ---
    In recent years, though, researchers have begun to realize that the extra carbon dioxide that humanity is pumping into the atmosphere isn’t just warming the planet, it’s also making some of our most important crops less nutritious by changing their chemical makeup and diluting vitamins and minerals.
    ---
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/m...29weeds-t.html
    ---
    Not only did the weeds grow much larger in hotter, CO2-enriched plots — a weed called lambs-quarters, or Chenopodium album, grew to an impressive 6 to 8 feet on the farm but to a frightening 10 to 12 feet in the city — but the urban, futuristic weeds also produced more pollen. Even more alarming was the way that the increased heat and CO2 accelerated and perverted the succession of species within the plots. Typically, a cleared area in the Eastern United States, if left to itself, returns to native woodland. This process varies with the site and circumstances, but in its archetypical form fast-growing annual weeds cover the soil first, playing the role of what ecologists classify as “pioneer plants.” These gradually give way to longer-lived perennial weeds, which are in turn replaced by shrubs and trees.
    In the natural version of this process, the pioneers and their successors are species indigenous to the area, and the woodland’s restoration takes decades. But what Ziska observed in his urban plots was ecology on amphetamines, a nearly completed succession to trees by the end of five years, with a domination by invasive weed trees of the most troublesome sort: ailanthus, Norway maples and mulberries. Five years after the creation of the plots, the biggest ailanthus in the rural test site measured about five feet tall. The city site boasted a 20-footer. The suburban plot was following the city’s lead, though it lagged a couple of years behind.



    https://www.everydayhealth.com/poiso...vy-more-toxic/
    ---
    In a 2006 study, a team led by Duke University researchers pumped extra CO2 over three plots in a North Carolina pine forest. Over a six-year period in a CO2-enriched environment, poison ivy grew larger leaves and produced a more toxic form of the sap oil, urushiol, that causes the allergic reactions. Researchers found that while the average tree grew about 8 percent faster in the CO2-enriched area, poison ivy sprouted 149 percent faster than it would have under normal carbon dioxide conditions.
    That’s because of photosynthesis. Trees use up some of the carbohydrates building their support structures, such as trunks, bark, and branches. But vines don’t waste their energy, and use trees, fences, and other structures for support, enabling them to grow more leafy surfaces. This allows them to consume more CO2, making more plant food, which then creates more CO2-absorbing leaves, in a continual positive feedback loop.
    ---
    True. Given the degree of hostility towards learning that you've displayed, and given how good I am, $50/hr was a laughably low offer. To compensate for my frustration, I'll have to raise that to $100/hr.
    Not possible, as "zero" can't be more than anything. All you've contributed is unsupported assertions, most of them incorrect.
    As that has nothing to do with anything I've talked about, that does fall under "Explaining the basics to you", and would thus require payment up front.
    If you've got a point to make there, then state it outright. Don't keep asking me to make your point for you. If you can't make a point yourself, just say so. Trying to play gotcha-question-games with me just makes you look even more evasive.
    You still have no clue. Having studied forestry and silviculture, plus Master Gardener and many eco-related subjects, I wouldn't be touting an article from the NY Times as an authority on the subject.

    I've stated my point, several times. Your statement was incorrect. Rather simple and straight forward - CO2 is necessary for trees and crops, virtually every plant. What can block the process, is dust and grit, volcanic ash and other air pollutants that prevent the absorption of not only CO2, but also
    nutrients.

    Matter of fact, you posted a quote that completely undermines your statement, but I don't know if you realize that.

    As to the reduced nutrients in crops, forcing faster growth via synthetic fertilizers, clogging leaves with foliar sprays and insecticides, picking early and shipping in heavily refrigerated trucks which stunts development, is the cause of less nutritious foods, add in bulk farming until all nutrients are gone from the soil, and then having to provide more synthetic fertilizers for anything to grow....

    Trees are sacrificed on city streets in attempts to reduce the CO2 produced my heavy vehicle traffic, much in the same way parks are intersected in heavily residential areas.

    You still haven't provided anything that supports your original statement, actually, quite the contrary. But since you insist on digging in deeper, keep posting.

    To add an additional note, once crops are removed from the host plant, they are actually are not 'ripening', they are rotting.
    Last edited by Collateral Damage; 07-15-2019 at 08:37 AM.
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Collateral Damage For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (07-15-2019),Peter1469 (07-15-2019),stjames1_53 (07-16-2019)

  7. #125
    Points: 43,595, Level: 51
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 1,655
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10174
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,645
    Points
    43,595
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,165x in 6,408 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The world is greening. Very inconvenient for the true believers.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hoosier8 For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (07-15-2019),stjames1_53 (07-27-2019)

  9. #126
    Points: 11,596, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1080
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,513
    Points
    11,596
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    15
    Thanked 1,071x in 788 Posts
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Collateral Damage View Post
    You still have no clue.
    And there's the handwave, as expected.

    Don't worry. Given your history, nobody ever expected you to address the data that you specifically asked for, so you're not disappointing anyone. Your thing is flouncing in, making grand pronouncements with nothing to back them up, and then demanding everyone accept them without question.

    Having studied forestry and silviculture, plus Master Gardener
    Oh, you're a Master Gardener? Why didn't you just say so. Now that we know that, everyone must clearly bow to your omniscient wisdom on every issue. You should have told us that up front, and saved everyone some time.

    and many eco-related subjects, I wouldn't be touting an article from the NY Times as an authority on the subject.
    Then maybe you should have read the papers the article was based on. Do I have to spoon feed you everything?

    I've stated my point, several times. Your statement was incorrect. Rather simple and straight forward - CO2 is necessary for trees and crops, virtually every plant. What can block the process, is dust and grit, volcanic ash and other air pollutants that prevent the absorption of not only CO2, but also nutrients.

    That's like saying "My point is the sky is blue." It's not a point, it's a statement of something obvious which does not relate to the issues being discussed.

    Your actual point looks to be that you don't have any sort of actual point, and you're babbling randomly now to cover that up.


    Matter of fact, you posted a quote that completely undermines your statement, but I don't know if you realize that.
    Oh, do tell. This should be funny.

    As to the reduced nutrients in crops, forcing faster growth via synthetic fertilizers, clogging leaves with foliar sprays and insecticides, picking early and shipping in heavily refrigerated trucks which stunts development, is the cause of less nutritious foods, add in bulk farming until all nutrients are gone from the soil, and then having to provide more synthetic fertilizers for anything to grow....
    As nobody said CO2 was the only cause, that was your exercise in creating and attacking a strawman.

    Trees are sacrificed on city streets in attempts to reduce the CO2 produced my heavy vehicle traffic, much in the same way parks are intersected in heavily residential areas.
    Again, that's a statement of the obvious, as opposed to being a relevant point. I'll also point out that "they absorb local CO2" is the least common reason I've heard for planting trees. Trees are planted in cities to reduce pollution, to cast shade, to cool the area, to absorb sound, to shelter wildlife, because they look nice, and to sequester carbon on a global scale. Local CO2 absorption is way down at the bottom of the list.

    You still haven't provided anything that supports your original statement, actually, quite the contrary. But since you insist on digging in deeper, keep posting.
    You mean aside from all the science you keep handwaving away. What you've proven there is that since you're not asking for data in good faith, there's no point in taking the time to give you such answers. It's now certain that you will simply ignore any responses you can't address, and then declare yourself victorious.

    To add an additional note, once crops are removed from the host plant, they are actually are not 'ripening', they are rotting.

    Another fine red herring, confirming your lack of possession of any actual point.
    Last edited by mamooth; 07-15-2019 at 08:00 PM.

  10. #127
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496584
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,594x in 94,422 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    And there's the handwave, as expected.

    Don't worry. Given your history, nobody ever expected you to address the data that you specifically asked for, so you're not disappointing anyone. Your thing is flouncing in, making grand pronouncements with nothing to back them up, and then demanding everyone accept them without question.



    Oh, you're a Master Gardener? Why didn't you just say so. Now that we know that, everyone must clearly bow to your omniscient wisdom on every issue. You should have told us that up front, and saved everyone some time.



    Then maybe you should have read the papers the article was based on. Do I have to spoon feed you everything?


    That's like saying "My point is the sky is blue." It's not a point, it's a statement of something obvious which does not relate to the issues being discussed.

    Your actual point looks to be that you don't have any sort of actual point, and you're babbling randomly now to cover that up.




    Oh, do tell. This should be funny.



    As nobody said CO2 was the only cause, that was your exercise in creating and attacking a strawman.



    Again, that's a statement of the obvious, as opposed to being a relevant point. I'll also point out that "they absorb local CO2" is the least common reason I've heard for planting trees. Trees are planted in cities to reduce pollution, to cast shade, to cool the area, to absorb sound, to shelter wildlife, because they look nice, and to sequester carbon on a global scale. Local CO2 absorption is way down at the bottom of the list.



    You mean aside from all the science you keep handwaving away. What you've proven there is that since you're not asking for data in good faith, there's no point in taking the time to give you such answers. It's now certain that you will simply ignore any responses you can't address, and then declare yourself victorious.


    Another fine red herring, confirming your lack of possession of any actual point.
    Is it frustrating that even the nations who signed the Paris Climate Accords have zero intention of meeting their voluntary goals? The US dump the deal and still does better. Why? Because we have a strong economy and can do it.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  11. #128
    Points: 665,345, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433322
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,560
    Points
    665,345
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,988
    Thanked 80,911x in 54,724 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    And there's the handwave, as expected.

    Don't worry. Given your history, nobody ever expected you to address the data that you specifically asked for, so you're not disappointing anyone. Your thing is flouncing in, making grand pronouncements with nothing to back them up, and then demanding everyone accept them without question.



    Oh, you're a Master Gardener? Why didn't you just say so. Now that we know that, everyone must clearly bow to your omniscient wisdom on every issue. You should have told us that up front, and saved everyone some time.



    Then maybe you should have read the papers the article was based on. Do I have to spoon feed you everything?


    That's like saying "My point is the sky is blue." It's not a point, it's a statement of something obvious which does not relate to the issues being discussed.

    Your actual point looks to be that you don't have any sort of actual point, and you're babbling randomly now to cover that up.




    Oh, do tell. This should be funny.



    As nobody said CO2 was the only cause, that was your exercise in creating and attacking a strawman.



    Again, that's a statement of the obvious, as opposed to being a relevant point. I'll also point out that "they absorb local CO2" is the least common reason I've heard for planting trees. Trees are planted in cities to reduce pollution, to cast shade, to cool the area, to absorb sound, to shelter wildlife, because they look nice, and to sequester carbon on a global scale. Local CO2 absorption is way down at the bottom of the list.



    You mean aside from all the science you keep handwaving away. What you've proven there is that since you're not asking for data in good faith, there's no point in taking the time to give you such answers. It's now certain that you will simply ignore any responses you can't address, and then declare yourself victorious.


    Another fine red herring, confirming your lack of possession of any actual point.


    Anyone ever notice how mamooth never talks science?
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Collateral Damage (07-16-2019),stjames1_53 (07-27-2019)

  13. #129
    Points: 21,530, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 420
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Collateral Damage's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6815
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    8,048
    Points
    21,530
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    11,707
    Thanked 6,805x in 4,162 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    And there's the handwave, as expected.
    Don't worry. Given your history, nobody ever expected you to address the data that you specifically asked for, so you're not disappointing anyone. Your thing is flouncing in, making grand pronouncements with nothing to back them up, and then demanding everyone accept them without question.
    Oh, you're a Master Gardener? Why didn't you just say so. Now that we know that, everyone must clearly bow to your omniscient wisdom on every issue. You should have told us that up front, and saved everyone some time.
    Then maybe you should have read the papers the article was based on. Do I have to spoon feed you everything?
    That's like saying "My point is the sky is blue." It's not a point, it's a statement of something obvious which does not relate to the issues being discussed.
    Your actual point looks to be that you don't have any sort of actual point, and you're babbling randomly now to cover that up.

    Oh, do tell. This should be funny.
    As nobody said CO2 was the only cause, that was your exercise in creating and attacking a strawman.
    Again, that's a statement of the obvious, as opposed to being a relevant point. I'll also point out that "they absorb local CO2" is the least common reason I've heard for planting trees. Trees are planted in cities to reduce pollution, to cast shade, to cool the area, to absorb sound, to shelter wildlife, because they look nice, and to sequester carbon on a global scale. Local CO2 absorption is way down at the bottom of the list.
    You mean aside from all the science you keep handwaving away. What you've proven there is that since you're not asking for data in good faith, there's no point in taking the time to give you such answers. It's now certain that you will simply ignore any responses you can't address, and then declare yourself victorious.
    Another fine red herring, confirming your lack of possession of any actual point.
    And you continue to dance around the fact that your original statement was false. You provide no reason why anyone should believe you have knowledge of the subject, especially when your original statement comes into play. While deriding the fact I am a Master Gardener, please recall that when you actually know what it is, and what they do.

    Perhaps, someday when you finally realize adults continue to educate themselves on a variety of subjects, how far from truth on the subject you are. Since you seem unable to understand what the point was, oh-so-higher-than-all, take some time to actually learn the subject before declaring yourself an expert on it.
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Collateral Damage For This Useful Post:

    Chris (07-16-2019),stjames1_53 (07-16-2019)

  15. #130
    Points: 11,596, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1080
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,513
    Points
    11,596
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    15
    Thanked 1,071x in 788 Posts
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Anyone ever notice how mamooth never talks science?
    I've noticed how you're just an insult troll now, at least when it comes to me. You toss out a propaganda dump, it gets debunked, so you power-pout about how mean I am.

    And yes, I do correctly take that as your admission of defeat. I think everyone does.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts