Pet Shop Boys Community

gregf wrote: PS

pet shop boy wrote:Government pump fear into the populations minds and its swallowed up. People like gregf only believe these idiots cos their left wingers.

This sort of comment eventually gets to anyone.

greg, petrol is legal to use, how thick are you? IF we humans were destroying the earth, it'd either be illegal or government wouldn't care, which is it?

STOP BLAMING HUMANS YOU RETARD.

IM SERIOUS HERE, I'LL f*** HIT YOU IF YOU STOOD NEXT TO ME AND BLAMED ME.

IM NOT GOING TO BE TREATED LIKE A KID BY YOU..

pet shop boy wrote: STOP BLAMING HUMANS YOU RETARD.

IM SERIOUS HERE, I'LL f***ing HIT YOU IF YOU STOOD NEXT TO ME AND BLAMED ME.

IM NOT GOING TO BE TREATED LIKE A KID BY YOU..

Forum Rules

Post Content
5. Personal threats and insults toward fellow forum members are unacceptable. Feel free to disagree with what others say or do, but keep your replies constructive and civilised. For example. “I disagree strongly with that.. I think this…”, as opposed to “I can’t believe you said that, you idiot!”. It’s always possible to get your opinion across without being rude or offensive.

The saddest part, is that this stifles our debates. You ruin it for everyone.
But a threat of physical violence is serious.
To help keep things friendly, I would just accept an apology.

Edited.

dVTB wrote:I don't want to see this topic closed, because 1 or 2 people misbehave.

I, on the other hand, do want to see this topic closed. "pet shop boy" has been allowed to blather his incoherent nonsense across two previous global warming threads, and quite frankly, there's nothing he's saying in this thread that he hasn't already vomited up on previous occasions.

The guy is an unreconstructed moron; let's cut him off now before he drags the rest of us down to his level again.

Edited.

gregf wrote:To help keep things friendly, I would just accept an apology.

After you.

dVTB wrote: Although we have a similar opinion, I strongly disagree with your way of discussing. It's really possible to discuss without attacking others for their opinion.

Do you strongly disagree with attacking me?

www.icecap.us

Brilliiant anti-GW homepage.

GW was and is the PC vehicle for neo-socialists to convince us that higher taxes and more regulations are necessary. Socialists love running people's lives and the higher the taxes the more power they have. Nobody has ever proven that humans are the culprits. How anybody can claim that methane, which has always been part of the atmosphere, be detrimental is beyond me! the same goes for CO2: It's always been around and in much higher numbers and yet nature didn't go crazy. CO2 follows the temperature change! A rise in CO2 is a consequence of higher temperatures and not the cause! That's basic chemistry! And then global scaremongers go on about " the highest temperature in 100 years" etc and I'm like: "so you're saying that it WAS warmer in the past?"
This notion that nature is helpless against greenhouse gases and that it cannot offset any imbalance is asinine. Of course it can! Besides, what's the ideal climate anyway? GW bullshit is full of imprecise and unscientific gibberish that nobody can really falsify. Thus it's nothing but junkscience.

If this discussion continues then please keep it within the boundaries of the forum rules, and replied to in an adult fashion. Comments like at the top of this page aren't acceptable and won't be tolerated.

Thank you.


StevePSB

Edited.

alig wrote:GW was and is the PC vehicle for neo-socialists to convince us that higher taxes and more regulations are necessary.

And here's Tweedle Dee enlightening us all with his own particular brand of bull.

Funny how he accuses global warming activists of wanting to raise taxes, yet he knows I am a liberal who favours lower taxes isn't it?

I'd say he ought to be made to justify his remarks, or suffer a ban from this place. I don't like that kind of intellectual cowardice; if he's going to accuse me of wanting to raise taxes when I've repeatedly stated they ought not be raised, he ought to back that up with cold hard facts, retract his statement, or get a hellban from the admin.

Anyone looking at anti-GW material should, copy the authors name, paste it into Google,
and check the person out.

If they have been involved with Martin Durkin's documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle,
then be suspicious. This doco is highly discredited. It is full of distortions and the
few good people on it were taken out of context and are now in conflict with the producer.

Also many GW sceptics are funded by Exxon. There are web sites where
you can plug in names and see all the funding Exxon has given them.

Typical is Richard Lindzen who is funded by a front company by Exxon. In the past he was funded through
the same method by the cigarette companies, to say that smoking did not cause cancer.

BTW the word "Climate Change" was made up by Bush's people to deliberately confuse
people into thinking it is a naturally occurring event. The guy who came up with it has
since regretted and admitted it was his invention while working for Bush.

Of course Co2 and temperature were high in the past. But that made large amounts of Earth uninhabitable.

dVTB wrote: I disagree with calling people "fascists", "retards", mentally ill or whatever, just because they have a different opinion about a subject. There's nothing "fascist" about believing global warming to be caused by humans. It is a possibility. An unlikely one, if you ask me, but still it doesn't make the believers "fascists" or whatever.

Its not because of a different opinion, i WELCOME everyone's human right to speak, its because of intolerant views towards me, fascism, its an intolerant view to blame humans for global warming.

Danny C wrote: Funny how he accuses global warming activists of wanting to raise taxes, yet he knows I am a liberal who favours lower taxes isn't it?

When you say liberal, do you mean as in the liberal political party's views on tax?

If not Dan, what tax system do you recommend?

gregf wrote: Also many GW sceptics are funded by Exxon. There are web sites where
you can plug in names and see all the funding Exxon has given them.

Typical is Richard Lindzen who is funded by a front company by Exxon. In the past he was funded through
the same method by the cigarette companies, to say that smoking did not cause cancer.

How many?

You're saying that because richard was wrong on cancer, he's 100% wrong on climate change?