NationStates Jolt Archive

There recently was a death of a 98-year-old lady named Irena Sendler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler).

During World War II, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a
Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ulterior motive... She KNEW
what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews (being German). Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack (for larger kids). She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the
ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the
barking covered the kids/infants noises. During her time of doing this, she
managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazis broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a
record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a
glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried
to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family.
Most, of course, had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into
foster family homes or adopted.

Last year Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize... She was not selected.

Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.

I don't have a source for this article because it was sent to me, but I did some searching and the story seems to check out.

But anyway, we got a woman who risked life and limb to save the lives of over two thousand Holocaust children versus a guy who merely presented a controversial theory. Am I the only one who thinks this is just wrong?

What do you guys think?


(Mind you, I still don't have a solid stance on the global warming issue)

yay for propaganda :rolleyes:

In before the Gore-aphobia.

She should have won for she did far more than Gore did.

I don't get it - how can a slide show on Global Warming have anything to do with creating "peace".

She should have won for she did far more than Gore did.

Hey Gore spent five minutes shouting at people to create a good slide show!

I don't have a source for this article because it was sent to me

so its a bit like that bullshit your gran emails you?

edit: here we go http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp

*mutters about shitty snopes not lettering me highlight* basically:

1) their is no way of knowing if this is true because the voting is kept secret for 50 years
2) it was not just awarded to Al Gore

presented a controversial theory. Am I the only one who thinks this is just wrong?

NO, bad USian! *hits with rolled up newspaper*

I don't have a source for this article because it was sent to me, but I did some searching and the story seems to check out.

But anyway, we got a woman who risked life and limb to save the lives of over two thousand Holocaust children versus a guy who merely presented a controversial theory. Am I the only one who thinks this is just wrong?

What do you guys think?


(Mind you, I still don't have a solid stance on the global warming issue)

Global Warmings the wrong name for it - Climate change is a better, more accurate description.

Didn't you know that saving the environment from global climate change which is so obviously man-made there's no need to offer or even seek proof of it is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world? Sure, this lady might have saved a few future polluters, but so what? She just helped enable their huge carbon footprint.
Just think of the poor baby polar bears, stranded on their ever-shrinking ice cap. Won't someone please think of the polar bears?

a guy who merely presented a controversial theory.

But that's the thing, the theory wasn't even the least bit controversial at that time, it was in fact at the peek of global warming hysteria and after many of the major policies reducing CO2 emissions were put in place. I don't think he had a significant influence at all into reduction of emissions, unless anyone on NSG can show otherwise.

For the record, it wasn't Gore alone who got a Nobel for the work, but rather him and the entire research team on the project. Provided the story of Irena is true, it's a pity she didn't get a Nobel during her life time, but a post-humous one? Seems like the Nobel commity awarded the people who could get some use out of the prestige and cash, so fair play to them.

Besides, we've got a supposed woman who supposedly saved 2,500 kids, then we've got a research group who managed to make 3 (although rumours say as many as five) Republican Americans realise that Global Warming exists. We all know which one took the most effort. ^_^

Didn't you know that saving the environment from global climate change which is so obviously man-made there's no need to offer or even seek proof of it is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world? Sure, this lady might have saved a few future polluters, but so what? She just helped enable their huge carbon footprint.
Just think of the poor baby polar bears, stranded on their ever-shrinking ice cap. Won't someone please think of the polar bears?

Lol at your poor attempt at humour.

Can some one tell me, what's actually good about winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Seems to me just like a ceremonial title of no real value.

If the story pans out, then yes, my fellow countryman would be turning in his grave.

Until I see some sort of reputable source, I'm calling shenanigans on this.

Lol at your poor attempt at humour.

Please don't laugh out loud. Every time you do, it releases more of a government-approved poison (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. If you wish to show your approval, a smile and a nod will suffice.

Can some one tell me, what's actually good about winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Seems to me just like a ceremonial title of no real value.

you get 50K iirc

Didn't you know that saving the environment from global climate change which is so obviously man-made there's no need to offer or even seek proof of it is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world? Sure, this lady might have saved a few future polluters, but so what? She just helped enable their huge carbon footprint.
Just think of the poor baby polar bears, stranded on their ever-shrinking ice cap. Won't someone please think of the polar bears?

Funny, I was always under the impression that the IPCC and the rest of the climatological scientific community had already gathered quite a bit of evidence. But as we all know, climatological data does NOT count.

Please don't laugh out loud. Every time you do, it releases more of a government-approved poison (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. If you wish to show your approval, a smile and a nod will suffice.

But with every nod I cause deadly wind currents!
And with every smile is un-economic for my energy!!

Global Warmings the wrong name for it - Climate change is a better, more accurate description.
It is indeed. Sadly, if we all used the right term for it there would be no opportunity for people to wail about how some data show cooling trends and that this somehow invalidates the mountains of evidence that have been accumulated. Accuracy has been sacrificed so that headlines and propaganda are easier to write.

Provided the story of Irena is true, it's a pity she didn't get a Nobel during her life time, but a post-humous one? Seems like the Nobel commity awarded the people who could get some use out of the prestige and cash, so fair play to them.
Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously. It's been discussed a few times for certain people (Gandhi was one, iirc), but the idea was rejected because of the whole 'can of worms' type scenario that would result if that kind of precedent was set.

But with every nod I cause deadly wind currents!

Only if you buy into chaos theory, every proponent of which was a dirty, filthy polluting human. They aren't even smart enough to realize the painfully obvious, that people are directly responsible for every climatological change that occurs!

And with every smile is un-economic for my energy!!
We all have to make sacrifices. We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and we certainly can't laugh whenever we want to willy-nilly, without stopping to think of the consequences to the poor baby polar bears!

Only if you buy into chaos theory, every proponent of which was a dirty, filthy polluting human. They aren't even smart enough to realize the painfully obvious, that people are directly responsible for every climatological change that occurs!


We all have to make sacrifices. We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and we certainly can't laugh whenever we want to willy-nilly, without stopping to think of the consequences to the poor baby polar bears!

You fail. Just, in general. My advice is to never breed, but continue polluting heavily. Then we can give you a Darwin Award. Provided some of us survive, anyway.

Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously.

Oh good.

1. She carried out her mission in 1942. Why did the committee wait 65 years to nominate her, if indeed they even did?

2. Assuming for a moment she WAS nominated (65 years after her heroic actions) and lost... how is that Al Gore's fault?

3. Aren't there things happening to living people we should be more outraged over?

You fail. Just, in general. My advice is to never breed, but continue polluting heavily. Then we can give you a Darwin Award.

I agree! In fact, we should all stop breeding! In further fact, we should be compelled by the government to stop breeding, in order to stop the disastrous spread of this terrible disease on Mother Earth called people. If we can't breed, there won't be any of us left to pollute the planet and the poor, harmless, cuddly-wuddly widdle baby polar bears will finally be safe!

I don't have a source for this article because it was sent to me, but I did some searching and the story seems to check out.

But anyway, we got a woman who risked life and limb to save the lives of over two thousand Holocaust children versus a guy who merely presented a controversial theory. Am I the only one who thinks this is just wrong?

What do you guys think?


(Mind you, I still don't have a solid stance on the global warming issue)

I beleive the way they see it, Al Gore is trying to save mankind in it's entirety whilst Irene saved as many of only one people as she could. In their eyes they're both heroes but Al Gore is the better one. Thats what I think they think., doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their decision.

So, she may have been nominated. And according to the Nobel Prize organisation itself, "The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later."

So what? In 2008, 197 people were nominated. I'm sure a lot of them deserved it as much as, if not more, than her.

The 2007 Prize was jointly awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on CLimate Change (an organisation) and Al Gore.

In 2006 Mohammed Yunus and Grameen Bank were awarded it for "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below".

People going to bitch about that one too?

I agree! In fact, we should all stop breeding! In further fact, we should be compelled by the government to stop breeding, in order to stop the disastrous spread of this terrible disease on Mother Earth called people. If we can't breed, we can't pollute and the poor, harmless, cuddly-wuddly widdle baby polar bears will finally be safe!

You do know that the aforementioned baby polar bears are in less danger than those living in Africa, in regards to Global Warming, right? Not that you care, mind you, just thought I'd add something new to your arguement before it got stale. Might I suggest, "think of the Africans?". It's been done before, I know, but it might catch on.

1. She carried out her mission in 1942. Why did the committee wait 65 years to nominate her, if indeed they even did?

2. Assuming for a moment she WAS nominated (65 years after her heroic actions) and lost... how is that Al Gore's fault?

3. Aren't there things happening to living people we should be more outraged over?

But who could turn down a chance to take a dig at Al Gore and thus disprove the existence of Global Climate Change, eh?

You do know that the aforementioned baby polar bears are in less danger than those living in Africa, in regards to Global Warming, right? Not that you care, mind you, just thought I'd add something new to your arguement before it got stale. Might I suggest, "think of the Africans?". It's been done before, I know, but it might catch on.

Pah, polluting humans, the lot of them! The world would be a lot better place without all these polluters around. If everyone on every coast dies of the sea levels rising up by hundreds of feet, as all intelligent people know they will, due to human-caused global climate change, it would serve them right for polluting the planet! The polar bears, however, have never done anything to beautiful Mother Earth! Their way of life is majestic and beautiful and special and wonderful, much better than those dirty humans. They're the ones we should worry about, not a group of polluters.

Global warming "sideshow"?

Yeah, okay....

Actually I meant because of the increase in mosquitors, and thus the increase in malaria. Not to mention the whole drought thing that would ensue... Oh, plus hurricanes in America. Big ones. Not that those happen much.

Actually I meant because of the increase in mosquitors, and thus the increase in malaria. Not to mention the whole drought thing that would ensue... Oh, plus hurricanes in America. Big ones. Not that those happen much.

An increase in malaria and drought would take out more of the filthy polluting humans who are causing the utter desolation of Mother Earth. It's the dirty humans and their big pollution factories who are most at risk from hurricanes. I say wipe them all out! More room for the polar bears, and other animals who've never polluted a day in their lives!

Technically she doesn't even meet the definition for the Nobel Peace Prize: "..to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Granted, Al Gore and the ICC don't really meet those requirements either, unless you're going to stretch it and say that climate change could cause war over resources in the near future. But the Peace Prize is most often rewarded to people who have wide-ranging international impact. In the cases where it's awarded to humanitarian workers, they're people who have worked their entire lives and are almost universally recognized (like Mother Teresa).

This woman suffered a lot to help kids during WWII, yes, but so did a lot of people. Many lost their loves trying to save the lives or ease the suffering of the people that were targeted by Hitler's regime. I don't want to diminish her acts, but as sensational as a few years of harrowing rescue is and as good as it is that she saved so many lives, it doesn't quite fit with the precedent of far-reaching change that has traditionally been set for Laureates.

I don't have a source for this article because it was sent to me, but I did some searching and the story seems to check out.

But anyway, we got a woman who risked life and limb to save the lives of over two thousand Holocaust children versus a guy who merely presented a controversial theory. Am I the only one who thinks this is just wrong?

What do you guys think?


(Mind you, I still don't have a solid stance on the global warming issue)

Sorry, the article reads like a 9 year old wrote it. But, even if the story turned out to be true.... so? For every Nobel winner, there are going to be a number of non-winners. You can't please everyone.

We could argue about the relative values of the contributions - someone MAY have saved 2500 children.... or may not. One little presentation may turn out to save millions of lives. Or may not. Eh?

(Also - it sounds like bullshit - who is supposed to have released the data that this 'irena' was shortlisted?)

(Also - it sounds like bullshit - who is supposed to have released the data that this 'irena' was shortlisted?)

I don't think anyone released anything. See this article (http://www.nysun.com/national/nobel-prize-is-sought-for-polish-heroine/47560).

The Polish president also supposedly said "she can justly be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize."

That comment seems more a general compliment, saying that, if she were nominated for it, it would be just. As the article shows there was a movement underway to have her nominated, but no official response-- it seems that the Nobel Prize Committee is holding true to its 50-year non-disclosure policy for nominees.

Truthfully, I'm doubting she was on the list to begin with. First, we have no actual evidence from anyone connected with the committee that they even knew her name. Second, none of us would know her name if not for this undocumented chain e-mail. Third, there's just enough of a grain of truth-- the grass-roots movement and the comment from the Polish president-- that someone could conceivably take it and craft a half-truth for their political whims, which is where a lot of these widely-circulated Emails begin with. Throw on the fact that this entire Email is a ham-handed ideological ploy and I think the doubt here is more than reasonable.

I don't think anyone released anything. See this article.

The Polish president also supposedly said "she can justly be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize."

That comment seems more a general compliment, saying that, if she were nominated for it, it would be just. As the article shows there was a movement underway to have her nominated, but no official response-- it seems that the Nobel Prize Committee is holding true to its 50-year non-disclosure policy for nominees.

Truthfully, I'm doubting she was on the list to begin with. First, we have no actual evidence from anyone connected with the committee that they even knew her name. Second, none of us would know her name if not for this undocumented chain e-mail. Third, there's just enough of a grain of truth-- the grass-roots movement and the comment from the Polish president-- that someone could conceivably take it and craft a half-truth for their political whims, which is where a lot of these widely-circulated Emails begin with. Throw on the fact that this entire Email is a ham-handed ideological ploy and I think the doubt here is more than reasonable.

You sound just like this Nigerian prince I know who's going to send me a bunch of money. Any day now, it should be.

Global warming "sideshow"?

Yeah, okay....

Yeah, didn't you see that one? Where Gore put it in neutral on Pennsylvania Ave., got out, jumped on the hood and did an impromptu interpretive dance of the melting glaciers? Man, that rocked.

3. Aren't there things happening to living people we should be more outraged over?
Not according to the pro-Israeli Americans and who knows else the world over.

What the hell are you people talking about? This is clearly evidence of a massive Jewish conspiracy, not climate change!

Judging by behaviour of a certain NSer on this thread, somebody is either having a good laugh with his puppet, or we've got eco-oriented mutation of our dear Andy here.

Being nominated is overrated. Keep in mind that all of these have beem nominated for the peace prize:

Adolf Hitler (http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?action=show&showid=2609)
Benito Mussolini (http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?action=show&showid=2197)
Joseph Stalin (http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?action=show&showid=3323)

Also, you should explain to me why you're not ranting and raving about Gandhi never getting a nobel peace prize.

Oh please, the Nobel Peace Prize for many years now has just being a way to give it to politicians or celebrities that have no real connection with peace, a bit like how Kissinger won it for allowing the shit to be bombed out of Cambodia.

Al Gore in this case did nothing for peace at all anyway and so the entire peace prize lost its last bit of credibility.

An increase in malaria and drought would take out more of the filthy polluting humans who are causing the utter desolation of Mother Earth. It's the dirty humans and their big pollution factories who are most at risk from hurricanes. I say wipe them all out! More room for the polar bears, and other animals who've never polluted a day in their lives!

I am pretty sure Polar bears produce waste, which gives out methane as it ferments as well as carbon dioxide.

Yes I know I am taking it to the extrerme but if Al Gore can do it, so will I.

I am pretty sure Polar bears produce waste, which gives out methane as it ferments as well as carbon dioxide.

Polar bears, and other animals, simply follow their nature, and no natural process has ever been responsible for a change in the environment. Everyone knows that all changes in the environment are a direct result of human activity!

Polar bears, and other animals, simply follow their nature, and no natural process has ever been responsible for a change in the environment. Everyone knows that all changes in the environment are a direct result of human activity!

Yeah those damn humans which stopped the ice age all that coal they were burning that is what caused the end of the last great ice age :rolleyes:

Exactly and human pollution has been destroying the world ever since! Just imagine the world as it should be, in a continued ice age, where the polar bears can roam wherever they wish, free from human-caused devastation!

Nobel invented dynamite. Fuck it.

Exactly and human pollution has been destroying the world ever since! Just imagine the world as it should be, in a continued ice age, where the polar bears can roam wherever they wish, free from human-caused devastation!

LMFAO, they werent really burning coal 10,000 years ago, mate.

Perhaps you can tell me how the climate change before humans had evolved was due to human activity

Nobel invented dynamite. Fuck it.

And his reaction to seeing dynamite being used to blow the shit out of people was probably the same as Einstein seeing e=mc² make a nice cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why he came up with the Peace Prize in the first place.

And his reaction to seeing dynamite being used to blow the shit out of people was probably the same as Einstein seeing e=mc² make a nice cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why he came up with the Peace Prize in the first place.

I had a similar reaction to the Poo Cannon. *nod*

It's quite simple, Blouman, although I don't expect those who irrationally deny what needs no evidence, now that there's a team of scientists willing to agree, to grasp it: All global climate change is a direct result of human activity. Anyone who thinks it might possibly be a natural or cyclical pattern is simply a bucktoothed inbred trailer park-livng Republican Southerner who doesn't know any better. Since all global climate change is a direct result of human activity, so must the ice age's ending have been caused by human activity. Also the ice age's beginning. And so on all the way through history, one giant legacy of global destruction caused by uncaring and unthinking humans pursuing their evil polluting lifestyles.

Judging by behaviour of a certain NSer on this thread, somebody is either having a good laugh with his puppet, or we've got eco-oriented mutation of our dear Andy here.

Like to see this guy go into Thunderdome with New Mitanni.

It's quite simple, Blouman, although I don't expect those who irrationally deny what needs no evidence, now that there's a team of scientists willing to agree, to grasp it: All global climate change is a direct result of human activity. Anyone who thinks it might possibly be a natural or cyclical pattern is simply a bucktoothed inbred trailer park-livng Republican Southerner who doesn't know any better. Since all global climate change is a direct result of human activity, so must the ice age's ending have been caused by human activity. Also the ice age's beginning. And so on all the way through history, one giant legacy of global destruction caused by uncaring and unthinking humans pursuing their evil polluting lifestyles.

Could you either be funnier or post less? I mean, I'm not funny, but at least I keep quiet most of the time.

Could you either be funnier or post less? I mean, I'm not funny, but at least I keep quiet most of the time.

There's nothing at all funny about the man-made destruction of Mother Earth, TFA.

It's quite simple, Blouman, although I don't expect those who irrationally deny what needs no evidence, now that there's a team of scientists willing to agree, to grasp it: All global climate change is a direct result of human activity. Anyone who thinks it might possibly be a natural or cyclical pattern is simply a bucktoothed inbred trailer park-livng Republican Southerner who doesn't know any better. Since all global climate change is a direct result of human activity, so must the ice age's ending have been caused by human activity. Also the ice age's beginning. And so on all the way through history, one giant legacy of global destruction caused by uncaring and unthinking humans pursuing their evil polluting lifestyles.

As I said I was taking it to the extreme with waste bit, but it is true animals do put Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I doubt a left wing tree hugging animal loving loony who never grew up to live in the real world would ever see that.

Now what I am debating is not your conclusion but your premise, your premise is that all climate change is a direct result of human activity. This is simply untrue as I said the fact that the climate has changed in the past without any humans on the planet blows your argument out of the water. Now you can continue with your idiotic misguided beliefs which does not surprise me since you have been so easily brainwashed by people who don't no any better, but the fact of the matter is that the world has been a lot hotter than it is now and a lot colder than it is now, even before humans evolved. Or perhaps you are a young creationist then yes according to you since humans have been on this planet since it was made then your premise would have a bit more credibility, however, it is still wrong

There's nothing at all funny about the man-made destruction of Mother Earth, TFA.

There is about your statements.

As I said I was taking it to the extreme with waste bit, but it is true animals do put Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I doubt a left wing tree hugging animal loving loony who never grew up to live in the real world would ever see that.

Now what I am debating is not your conclusion but your premise, your premise is that all climate change is a direct result of human activity. This is simply untrue as I said the fact that the climate has changed in the past without any humans on the planet blows your argument out of the water. Now you can continue with your idiotic misguided beliefs which does not surprise me since you have been so easily brainwashed by people who don't no any better, but the fact of the matter is that the world has been a lot hotter than it is now and a lot colder than it is now, even before humans evolved. Or perhaps you are a young creationist then yes according to you since humans have been on this planet since it was made then your premise would have a bit more credibility, however, it is still wrong

Sounds like just another Republican in denial of the obvious. It's called the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's a panel of scientists. They all agree that global climate change is the direct result of human activity. End of discussion! Now if you want to live in your hole, clinging to your historical global temperature records and your "facts" go right ahead. Stick your head in the sand. The most important work we can do now is to stop all human activity, which has been proven by scientists to be the direct cause of global climate change. We have a responsibility to sacrifice whatever it takes, even if it means crawling back into the ways of our cave-dwelling ancestors, to stop the clearly human-caused destruction of Mother Earth, at all costs!

Sounds like just another Republican in denial of the obvious. It's called the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's a panel of scientists. They all agree that global climate change is the direct result of human activity. End of discussion! Now if you want to live in your hole, clinging to your historical global temperature records and your "facts" go right ahead. Stick your head in the sand. The most important work we can do now is to stop all human activity, which has been proven by scientists to be the direct cause of global climate change. We have a responsibility to sacrifice whatever it takes, even if it means crawling back into the ways of our cave-dwelling ancestors, to stop the clearly human-caused destruction of Mother Earth, at all costs!

Sorry that is an appeal to authority, a fallacy mate try again.

I could also say there is a group of scientists that do not say that climate change is a direct result of human activity. Just because you want to claim the it is the end of discussion, does not automatically mean you are right, what it means is that you have decided to take a stance close your ears and eyes to any facts that contradict it and say "nahnahnah I can't hear you".

Now you say we should go back to our cave dwelling ways to protect the Earth, yet you claim that during those times the climate change was due to the human activity, so that is not the right answer at all. What we should do is kill every living being on the planet (perhaps you could lead the way) because without humans then there can't be any climate change. There still will be climate change but we will all be dead so it wouldn't matter.

Sounds like just another Republican in denial of the obvious. It's called the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's a panel of scientists. They all agree that global climate change is the direct result of human activity. End of discussion! Now if you want to live in your hole, clinging to your historical global temperature records and your "facts" go right ahead. Stick your head in the sand. The most important work we can do now is to stop all human activity, which has been proven by scientists to be the direct cause of global climate change. We have a responsibility to sacrifice whatever it takes, even if it means crawling back into the ways of our cave-dwelling ancestors, to stop the clearly human-caused destruction of Mother Earth, at all costs!

I'm booked for a holiday next Summer and I don't want to lose my deposit, can we wait til after then?

I'm booked for a holiday next Summer and I don't want to lose my deposit, can we wait til after then?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! We must stop all consumption of fossil fuels immediately! No jet or airplane travel, no ships, boats or submarines, and definitely no gas or diesel-burning automobiles! This must be done immediately. Then, we must work on eliminating use of natural gas and coal, stop all nuclear power generation, then eliminate of mining and farming, which destroy the face of Mother Earth, and so on until every trace of humanity's self-centered lifestyle has been extinguished. Finally we must implement a program to sterilize the entire human race to ensure that Mother Earth can never again be threatened with global climate change.

I certainly hope Nicea Sancta that you are posting using a computer that is made 100% of recyclable material and that the energy used to power the computer is 100% 'green' energy.

Global Warmings the wrong name for it - Climate change is a better, more accurate description.




This way it dosen't matter if the temperature goes up or down they are right. Just another way to sucker the masses.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! We must stop all consumption of fossil fuels immediately! No jet or airplane travel, no ships, boats or submarines, and definitely no gas or diesel-burning automobiles! This must be done immediately.

I was so looking forward to it as well :(

Then, we must work on eliminating use of natural gas and coal, stop all nuclear power generation, then eliminate of mining and farming, which destroy the face of Mother Earth, and so on until every trace of humanity's self-centered lifestyle has been extinguished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kbEHOLUo8I&feature=related

Does that change your mind?

*snip* - ha ha, get it, sterilised...snip....no?

I certainly hope Nicea Sancta that you are posting using a computer that is made 100% of recyclable material and that the energy used to power the computer is 100% 'green' energy.

Don't they teach you anything in Bush-loving Republican country? Any damage to the environment made in the pursuit of ending damage to the environment is justified. It's the same reason Al Gore, the prophet of our time, is justified in the use of his private jet, since he uses it to travel about the world warning people of the dangers of global climate change. Haven't you ever heard of a little principle called "The ends justify the means?"

This way it dosen't matter if the temperature goes up or down they are right. Just another way to sucker the masses.
Yeah!! Those bloody environmentalist pig-dogs!

*waves fist*

Damn them in their Birckenstocks and hemp clothing, oppressing the people through recycled loo roll and hummus!

Don't they teach you anything in Bush-loving Republican country? Any damage to the environment made in the pursuit of ending damage to the environment is justified. It's the same reason Al Gore, the prophet of our time, is justified in the use of his private jet, since he uses it to travel about the world warning people of the dangers of global climate change. Haven't you ever heard of a little principle called "The ends justify the means?"

How you manage your hypicrosy is no concern to me.

And no they don't as I have never been.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kbEHOLUo8I&feature=related

Does that change your mind?

If that didn't then the animal lover insde him mike change his mind with this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rm7E6zvLhw&feature=related

Damn them in their Birckenstocks and hemp clothing, oppressing the people through recycled loo roll and hummus!

If only all those people were like that

If only all those people were like that
What are others of 'those people' like?

Damn them in their Birckenstocks and hemp clothing, oppressing the people through recycled loo roll and hummus!

The love of hummus is the root of all evil?

*yawn*

As others have pointed out, there's no way to know if the Nobel committee had ever so much as heard of this woman, so this is really just another silly chain email.

How you manage your hypicrosy is no concern to me.

The only hypocrisy here is your continued attack of those who are trying to clean up after your mess! You and your ancestors are responsible for the destruction of Mother Earth and yet dare to complain about the sacrifices required to restore the global environment to its pre-humanity pristine state.

The love of hummus is the root of all evil?
That and chapatis.

What are others of 'those people' like?

One only has to look at Al Gore to be able to see this. Not to mention those living in inner city centres who proclaim that climate change is the scourge of our world and that we must stop the destruction of the Earth as they drive off in their gas guzzling cars wearing their designer clothes not made out of hemp. Come on Chum you know not all people who will actively speak out against carbon emissions and that we must curb them are of the same stock that you described, how do I know this? Many of them are my friends.

Come on Chum you know not all people who will actively speak out against carbon emissions and that we must curb them are of the same stock that you described...
I'm afraid you're right in some respects, I just worried you were of one of those strange fellows who think there's some giant environmentalist conspiracy headed by Al Gore.

The only hypocrisy here is your continued attack of those who are trying to clean up after your mess! You and your ancestors are responsible for the destruction of Mother Earth and yet dare to complain about the sacrifices required to restore the global environment to its pre-humanity pristine state.

Sometimes I wonder if I should continue pointing out how you have no idea what you are talking about.

How is someone cleaning up my mess hypocritical?

In before the Gore-aphobia.

Gore-aphobia is nothing to laugh about. I, for one, am unable to maintain meaningful relationships with elephants, rhinoceroses, or narwhals because of my anxiety disorder.

Sometimes I wonder if I should continue pointing out how you have no idea what you are talking about.

How is someone cleaning up my mess hypocritical?Which one of you needs the massage here?
Or are you the same? Hard to tell in this thread ....

NO, bad USian! *hits with rolled up newspaper*
Bad Brit!*Hits CTP with a rolled up Game Informer magazine*

Give it up, Al Gore is little more then a scaremongering politician, who wants us all to believe we'll be dead in a few years if we don't shut down all factories and replace them with "Green" energy and factories that use 10% more power.

I'm afraid you're right in some respects, I just worried you were of one of those strange fellows who think there's some giant environmentalist conspiracy headed by Al Gore.

Look I have respect for people who practice what they preach, if they say we shouldn't be using oil and gas and they don't themselves or they say no pesticides should be used when growing food and they only eat food that hasn't had pesticides or they grow their own leaving it to nature then fine I have respect for them (I may not agree with them) but what gets my goat is people who would say that we should be using less oil as they drive off in their H3 and leave all the lights on in their house all night which is being powered by the local oil power plant.

Gore-aphobia is nothing to laugh about. I, for one, am unable to maintain meaningful relationships with elephants, rhinoceroses, or narwhals because of my anxiety disorder.
NOW i understand that first line in your sig.
*looks around nervously*

Which one of you needs the massage here?
Or are you the same? Hard to tell in this thread ....

We all do Straughn. But I would still like to know how I was being hypocritical.

Bad Brit!*Hits CTP with a rolled up Game Informer magazine*

Give it up, Al Gore is little more then a scaremongering politician, who wants us all to believe we'll be dead in a few years if we don't shut down all factories and replace them with "Green" energy and factories that use 10% more power.How're them Morlocks and David Icke doing, by the way?

Bad Brit!*Hits CTP with a rolled up Game Informer magazine*

Give it up, Al Gore is little more then a scaremongering politician, who wants us all to believe we'll be dead in a few years if we don't shut down all factories and replace them with "Green" energy and factories that use 10% more power.

Does it really matter? The Mayan calander ends it 2012 so according to what I have heard the world is going to end then anyway!

We all do Straughn. But I would still like to know how I was being hypocritical.I'm merely insinuating that a massage in this particular case might assuage you a smidge. Might give a good perspective.

Does it really matter? The Mayan calander ends it 2012 so according to what I have heard the world is going to end then anyway!Just so we're sure, what do the Chinese and Jewish calendars read about the Mayan calendar date?

I'm merely insinuating that a massage in this particular case might assuage you a smidge. Might give a good perspective.

Well my shoulders do feel a bit tight I could do with a good massage.

Blouman, I can't believe you thought Nicea Sancta was serious. Either you're both posters playing ping-pong to really hammer your point home with the bluntest possible instrument, or you're just that easy to dupe.

I certainly hope Nicea Sancta that you are posting using a computer that is made 100% of recyclable material and that the energy used to power the computer is 100% 'green' energy.

How you manage your hypicrosy is no concern to me.

Sometimes I wonder if I should continue pointing out how you have no idea what you are talking about.

How is someone cleaning up my mess hypocritical?

You kept going on and on, and if it was just a ruse on your part as well, then hardy-har-har. Either way, Nicea Sancta was yammering, and you were buying all of it. Yikes.

Just so we're sure, what do the Chinese and Jewish calendars read about the Mayan calendar date?

Seeing as the Mayans are pre-dated by lots of other cultures who don't think the world is ending in 2012 just because the calendar didn't go any further than that....

Has it never occurred to anyone touting this horseshit that the Mayans may have simply run out of things to carve or things to carve with? Also, the calendar on my wall doesn't go past December 2008. HOLY SHITBALLS! THE WORLD'S GONNA END!

Spluh.

Blouman, I can't believe you thought Nicea Sancta was serious. Either you're both posters playing ping-pong to really hammer your point home with the bluntest possible instrument, or you're just that easy to dupe.

Well I don't know I mean I did say I wasn't being serious in my first post in that started it off and then again in another post, as he wanted to continue I decided to go along with it.

Just so we're sure, what do the Chinese and Jewish calendars read about the Mayan calendar date?


I am not sure but I think they are like Gregorian calander and just add another year when it gets here. After all they are civilizations that still exist.

Does it really matter? The Mayan calander ends it 2012 so according to what I have heard the world is going to end then anyway!
One of the many Mayan calendars ends in 2012.

But if I was writing a calendar sometime in the early 900s, I might not write dates after 2012 either. One would hope somebody would a write a new calender in the intermittent period...

One of the many Mayan calendars ends in 2012.

But if I was writing a calendar sometime in the early 900s, I might not write dates after 2012 either. One would hope somebody would a write a new calender in the intermittent period...

I agree.

It is so hard to infer sarcasm in a post.

Well I don't know I mean I did say I wasn't being serious in my first post in that started it off and then again in another post, as he wanted to continue I decided to go along with it.

He'd been on the "fake eco-liberal" tack for a few posts before you helped him out, but hey, we all buy the okey-doke sometimes.

Can some one tell me, what's actually good about winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Seems to me just like a ceremonial title of no real value.

Heck...Gandhi did not get one and Arafat got one...

I agree.

It is so hard to infer sarcasm in a post.
Smilies help. Especially: :rolleyes:

Seeing as the Mayans are pre-dated by lots of other cultures who don't think the world is ending in 2012 just because the calendar didn't go any further than that....Sounds like they got to you too. I WANT to believe!
<.<
>.>

Spluh.Amy Wong rocks.
*bows*

He'd been on the "fake eco-liberal" tack for a few posts before you helped him out, but hey, we all buy the okey-doke sometimes.

Serves me right for not reading the entire thread I suppose.

It is so hard to infer sarcasm in a post.:fluffle:

Sorry Blouman I thought you were just playing along too.
Yeah, that was sarcasm. Didn't mean to mislead you!

I agree.
It is so hard to infer sarcasm in a post.
Smilies help. Especially: :rolleyes:

By using the :rolleyes: smiley I can tell whether or not other people are being sarcastic?

Sorry Blouman I thought you were just playing along too.
Yeah, that was sarcasm. Didn't mean to mislead you!

I started off playing along with you, but as I didn't realise you were I changed tact, as I say maybe if I read the entire thread and seen what you were doing then I would have stopped along time ago.

You do know that the aforementioned baby polar bears are in less danger than those living in Africa, in regards to Global Warming, right? Not that you care, mind you, just thought I'd add something new to your arguement before it got stale. Might I suggest, "think of the Africans?". It's been done before, I know, but it might catch on.

Did you know that there's a clinic in Kenya a few miles from a huge coal deposit but they're not allowed to use the coal and have to use a couple of solar panels which can either run the lights or the fridge to keep blood samples, medicine etc cold, but if they want both the circuit overloads.

What do you guys think?


Gore and (more than him) the guys at the GCC panel deserved the prize.
Do you know how many life-years every year are lost due to pollution? Directly, I mean, not including the side co-effects of pollution like climate change and desertification.