[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239161]Some facts are not family friendly.

it is undeniable that any method that prevents people from breathing is much more effective at lowering anthropogenic CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emmisions, than
[/QUOTE]If you weren't acting like a petulant teenager, you would have looked at my previous reply (which pointed to my response higher up in this thread). You are failing to even attempt to come up to speed with the current course of this discussion. You throw around a big word like 'anthropogenic', but can't even spell 'emissions' correctly. This is a potential indicator of your level of fitness for this discussion.

If you were a 'true believer' in what you said, you would not advocate the elimination of CH's personal oral carbon loading. Rather you would insist that he first work to cut the OCL of those around him, in his first world area first (or even in a co-ordinated manner, his own too at the same time), and then th OCL in the adjoin region, etc. The fact that you are not pushing the position shows that you are a disingenuous, prevaricating, uneducated (as previously pointed out) 3rd rate, failed gadfly.

Limited time - Royal Society theme issue
 

The Royal Society has just published:

"Theme Issue 'Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications'"

[I][U][B]The Royal Society has made its "entire digital archive free to access" through TODAY!

Download the articles NOW - read them later!![/B][/U][/I]

[URL]http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc[/URL]

*************************************************

I just became aware of this important issue [I]and its articles' free digital access only through [U]today[/U][/I], or else I wouldn't be insistent on D/Ling them right away.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;239187]Well, let's see ... your video was grossly inappropriate for an all-ages forum like this[...] So I deleted it. Next?[/QUOTE]

That policy creates a selection bias towards unpriviledged posters like cheesehead with 5000+ posts with no content whatsoever, and towards privileged posters with interchangable opinions.

Frankly, the video only made sense in response to wblipp's posting. Who deleted that one? He himself, after having finding out how badly he shot himself in the foot?*

An interesting factoid: six of the twenty-one posts containing the uncensored form of the word 'f***' and seven of the thirty posts containing the uncensored form of the word 'a**hole' were posted by ewhypocrite.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239344]That policy creates a selection bias towards unpriviledged posters like cheesehead with 5000+ posts with no content whatsoever, and towards privileged posters with interchangable opinions.[/QUOTE]Tough. if you don't like it, the exit is thataway.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;239351]Tough. if you don't like it, the exit is thataway.

Paul[/QUOTE]

OK. How do I delete my account?

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239344]Frankly, the video only made sense in response to wblipp's posting.[/QUOTE]I believe that you are in error in this matter. The post just before your's was by Xilman. You obviously don't even know who is who around here.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239418]OK. How do I delete my account?[/QUOTE]You ask me nicely and in a public posting so that there can be no doubt that I'm responding to your wishes and not merely indulging in a piece of gratuitous vindictiveness.

I'll then ban your account permanently. From there on, you will not be able to post any further material under that account.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;239447]You ask me nicely and in a public posting so that there can be no doubt that I'm responding to your wishes and not merely indulging in a piece of gratuitous vindictiveness.

I'll then ban your account permanently. From there on, you will not be able to post any further material under that account.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Banning an account is not the same thing as unregistering it. Maybe you'd have to get your hands dirty and delete a couple of records in the backend database directly, but it is certainly do-able for a user with sufficient priviledges. A more interesting question is whether someone indulging in a piece of gratuitous vindictiveness could obtain a court order instructing you to do so...or to suffer the consequences.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239464]Banning an account is not the same thing as unregistering it. Maybe you'd have to get your hands dirty and delete a couple of records in the backend database directly, but it is certainly do-able for a user with sufficient priviledges. A more interesting question is whether someone indulging in a piece of gratuitous vindictiveness could obtain a court order instructing you to do so...or to suffer the consequences.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you can get Interpol to go after Paul once they're done chasing down "most wanted international sex pervert and terrorist" Julian Assange.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;175157]Again, I will advocate that the main, [U][I]long term[/I][/U] solution for the GW problem is severely restricted global scale human population, to about 1/3-1/2 current levels. 1 child per couple policy, incentives for verified sterilisations (of adults), incentives for adoption vs. birthed single child would all help.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;233269]A nice little bit of vindication here:
[URL]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/10/global-warming-overpopulation-climate-change.html[/URL]
[/QUOTE]Uncwilly (and others),

Did you notice the key omission in the reasoning presented in the LA Times article? What key assumption is unstated? What flaw in the argument that "the main, [U][I]long term[/I][/U] solution for the GW problem is severely restricted global scale human population", as stated, so easily allows it to be twisted as was recently done in this thread?

Hint: it's a "big picture" sort of thing.

I'll give folks a while to think about it. Those of you who think you see what I mean, but haven't ever advocated this argument yourselves, [I]please hold off on posting for a day or two, to let the others think about it[/I].[I] (After all, you failed to point out the omission -- as did I -- when the argument was originally presented, so you can afford to wait a couple of days to do so now!)[/I]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;239488]Maybe you can get Interpol to go after Paul once they're done chasing down "most wanted international sex pervert and terrorist" Julian Assange.[/QUOTE]

Yeah right. Paul is merely a henchman of six pervert and tourist Xyzzy. But they themselves are pefectly safe: any reasonable person would try to take out their children and wipe out their seed.