Fox News: Solar only works in Germany because it gets more sunlight than US

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

It was the guest they had on the show that said that...the host of the show brought up the point in favor of solar due to the fact that it's working in Germany...

Apparently Alex Jones speaks for CNN since he was a guest on Piers Morgan.

Oh the irony of the responses in this thread. 

SpartanMSU

She gets a paycheck from Fox...she wasn't a guest.  She was a contributor/correspondent.

#52 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

It was the guest they had on the show that said that...the host of the show brought up the point in favor of solar due to the fact that it's working in Germany...

Apparently Alex Jones speaks for CNN since he was a guest on Piers Morgan.

Oh the irony of the responses in this thread. 

SpartanMSU

She isn't just a guest, she works for Fox.

She's a reporter for FBN. She made a stupid comment in casual conversation about solar energy, in which the host of the show actually made a point FOR SOLAR ENERGY. It's not like Fox News came out with a headline saying it. 

By the way, she's a grad of HBS and was an investment banking analyst for Morgan Stanley. Yeah, I'd say she has more intelligence in one brain cell than OT has altogether. 

Pssh, and she quit after analyst to look for buy-side opportunities most likely.  Call me when she makes Managing Director :P.

[spoiler]  For the record I'm jping around analyst is a ton of work, even if it is all grunt labor and 110 hour work weeks.  And quite honestly, she probably didn't say that in ignorance, but rather in an attempt to further the agenda for which she is speaking on behalf of, people in high finance are usually extremely smart, driven, and hard-working, just also very manipulative. [/spoiler]

#53 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29114 posts) -

And Global warming is NOT "widely accepted"  actually, most scientists think it is completely bogus or not a threat at all.  Just a few high profile environmentalists say it's the Armageddon.

GOGOGOGURT

Try again

#54 Posted by MannyDelgado (1250 posts) -

The earth has been much warmer than it is today.

GOGOGOGURT

Do you honestly think climate scientists haven't realised this

Honestly, sometimes I forget the extent to which the internet is overflowing with arrogant c*nts like you who think they know best because they watched a couple of videos on youtube

#56 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

And Global warming is NOT "widely accepted"  actually, most scientists think it is completely bogus or not a threat at all.  Just a few high profile environmentalists say it's the Armageddon.

chessmaster1989

Try again

Feel bad for hokie. Hopefully there's a non graph version.
#57 Posted by sSubZerOo (43098 posts) -

 

The earth has been much warmer than it is today.

GOGOGOGURT

No sh!t.. The earth was also a molten globe of fire with no atmosphere in the past..  Hilarious.

#58 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12859 posts) -

 

Actually we do have enough oil for at least another 100 years.  Natural gas is also good for many more years.  Then nuclear power which is allmost infinite and quite efficient. 

 

Solar only gets 15% efficiancy and cost a ton.  So they are a bad idea right now unless you don't want the economy to recover. 

GOGOGOGURT

Photovoltaic cells aren't the only form of solar power. Reflective heating works quite well.

jr8eh2.jpg

#59 Posted by Ncsoftlover (2111 posts) -

"and we've got plenty of that

yep, lots and lots"

... something about the way they talk, I don't know what it is, but it's vomit inducing. 

#61 Posted by Ncsoftlover (2111 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

It was the guest they had on the show that said that...the host of the show brought up the point in favor of solar due to the fact that it's working in Germany...

Apparently Alex Jones speaks for CNN since he was a guest on Piers Morgan.

Oh the irony of the responses in this thread. 

SpartanMSU

She isn't just a guest, she works for Fox.

She's a reporter for FBN. She made a stupid comment in casual conversation about solar energy, in which the host of the show actually made a point FOR SOLAR ENERGY. It's not like Fox News came out with a headline saying it. 

By the way, she's a grad of HBS and was an investment banking analyst for Morgan Stanley. Yeah, I'd say she has more intelligence in one brain cell than OT has altogether. 

respecting only the established way of measuring "success" and associating it with intelligence, as if there's no other way to express intelligence, that is indeed a very "conservative" mode of thinking.

#62 Posted by thebest31406 (3347 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

And Global warming is NOT "widely accepted"  actually, most scientists think it is completely bogus or not a threat at all.  Just a few high profile environmentalists say it's the Armageddon.

chessmaster1989

Try again

Pwned.
#63 Posted by wis3boi (31184 posts) -

FOX defined itself as "an entertainment source" in court before, so they can lie all they want and get away with it.  The word "News" should be removed

#64 Posted by Born_Lucky (1618 posts) -

Germany is smaller .  A LOT smaller.

 

Germany does have more sunny days over it's entire land mass than the US . A LOT more.

 

FOX tells the truth and liberals who are too stupid to understand it, make fun of them .

 

Typical day in herp derp land.

#65 Posted by Jebus213 (8758 posts) -

Germany is smaller .  A LOT smaller.

 

Germany does have more sunny days over it's entire land mass than the US . A LOT more.

 

FOX tells the truth and liberals who are too stupid to understand it, make fun of them .

 

Typical day in herp derp land.

Born_Lucky
Joke post?
#66 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] She isn't just a guest, she works for Fox. Ncsoftlover

She's a reporter for FBN. She made a stupid comment in casual conversation about solar energy, in which the host of the show actually made a point FOR SOLAR ENERGY. It's not like Fox News came out with a headline saying it. 

By the way, she's a grad of HBS and was an investment banking analyst for Morgan Stanley. Yeah, I'd say she has more intelligence in one brain cell than OT has altogether. 

respecting only the established way of measuring "success" and associating it with intelligence, as if there's no other way to express intelligence, that is indeed a very "conservative" mode of thinking.

When did I mention "success" or that I was a "conservative"? Your post makes no fvcking sense, which further proves that last sentance.

#67 Posted by KungfuKitten (20900 posts) -

At some point you have to wonder whether they should be allowed to be depicting themselves as a valid news channel if it is so erroneous.
I do know some advertisements that were mimicking serious news messages got shut down.

#68 Posted by KungfuKitten (20900 posts) -

FOX defined itself as "an entertainment source" in court before, so they can lie all they want and get away with it.  The word "News" should be removed

wis3boi

Ah ok I don't think it is obvious enough to the common people that they are meant to be an entertainment source. I'm sure there are laws stating how 'realistic' they are allowed to look.
Even in Wiki it is stated to be a "cable news channel" which can't be right.

#69 Posted by Ncsoftlover (2111 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

She's a reporter for FBN. She made a stupid comment in casual conversation about solar energy, in which the host of the show actually made a point FOR SOLAR ENERGY. It's not like Fox News came out with a headline saying it. 

By the way, she's a grad of HBS and was an investment banking analyst for Morgan Stanley. Yeah, I'd say she has more intelligence in one brain cell than OT has altogether. 

SpartanMSU

respecting only the established way of measuring "success" and associating it with intelligence, as if there's no other way to express intelligence, that is indeed a very "conservative" mode of thinking.

When did I mention "success" or that I was a "conservative"? Your post makes no fvcking sense, which further proves that last sentance.

 no it only shows that you don't have the ability to grasp a simple sentence, not anything else.

a brain cell is a brain cell, it's not going to be different from any other person's braincells, and it's not going to be comparable to hundred of thousands of people combined together.

#70 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

FOX defined itself as "an entertainment source" in court before, so they can lie all they want and get away with it.  The word "News" should be removed

KungfuKitten

Ah ok I don't think it is obvious enough to the common people that they are meant to be an entertainment source. I'm sure there are laws stating how 'realistic' they are allowed to look.
Even in Wiki it is stated to be a "cable news channel" which can't be right.

Unfortunately, many of their viewers not only take them seriously but also view them as the sole reputable source in a sea of otherwise "left wing socialist media".
#71 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

I read this awhile ago, my mind is still boggled as to how anyone who knows anything about either country could think that Germany is actually sunnier.

#72 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

And Global warming is NOT "widely accepted"  actually, most scientists think it is completely bogus or not a threat at all.  Just a few high profile environmentalists say it's the Armageddon.

thebest31406

Try again

Pwned.

 

Link

 

Fool. That is based on a tiny survey in 2009.  I quote:

 

"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous consensus claim that 98% of all scientists believe in global warming come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered yes to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That 98% all scientists referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered yes."  -Forbes-Larry Bell

 

Even if every single scientist believed in a catastrophic man-made global warming, it still proves nothing.  There are countless times in history where there was a general consensus on issues, and they proved to be wrong.  Ensteins theory of relativity and sting theory is one.  Turned out to be true.  All scientists thought that continental drift was impossible.  Turned out to be true.  Earth was the center of the universe.  False.  And the Piltdown Man.

 

Is there anyone on OT that is a free-thinker? 

#73 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

The earth has been much warmer than it is today.

MannyDelgado

Do you honestly think climate scientists haven't realised this

Honestly, sometimes I forget the extent to which the internet is overflowing with arrogant c*nts like you who think they know best because they watched a couple of videos on youtube

 

It might seem like I'm arrogant because I am sticking my neck out there for a very unpopular view.  I have all the mainstream lemmings on my a** now.

 

And you tube is a terrible resource.  I do almost all my research in the library.  Yeas there are idiots who will get convinced of anything on you tube, like that bollocks KONY 2012 video.  Just play sad music behind a slideshow, and weak-minded people will fall in droves.

#74 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

 

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

The earth has been much warmer than it is today.

sSubZerOo

No sh!t.. The earth was also a molten globe of fire with no atmosphere in the past..  Hilarious.

 

Yes it is hilarious.  That you can't see the significance.  It's been hotter in the past, and mammals thrived.  If mammals thrived, we can thrive.

 

Shoud have read the rest of my post.  Unless you're illiterate.

#75 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
GOGOGOGURT
http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is the petition that guy is talking about if anyone is wondering.  Question for you: Do you think Carbon Dioxide has an effect on the global climate?
#76 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Ace6301
http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is the petition that guy is talking about.

 

Yes put in better words than me. 

 

How does this prove me wrong?  This just supports what I said in that post.

#77 Posted by lo_Pine (5048 posts) -
The only News worth reading is in "The Economist" newspaper/magazine. That's why it's so expensive. "The WSJ" I might include but it is owned by the same company that owns Fox. So, obsolete IMO.
#78 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]GOGOGOGURT

http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is the petition that guy is talking about.

 

Yes put in better words than me. 

 

How does this prove me wrong?  This just supports what I said in that post.

Because that page has a breakdown of signatures. 0.1% have a degree in climatology. 39 people. People aren't listed under their profession so it's impossible to verify if it's actually even people. Quite a number of the names turn up no results. Even assuming it is true and even putting careers which have some degree of relevance toward climate change you end up with a little less than 0.1% of the current number of degree holders in said professions having signed this. But I like graphs  I know climate change deniers don't.
#79 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Ace6301
http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is the petition that guy is talking about if anyone is wondering.  Question for you: Do you think Carbon Dioxide has an effect on the global climate?

No, I think the rise a rise in global temprature has an effect on CO2 being released.  But yes CO2 does affect the climate, as does every gas in the atmosphere.

#80 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
No, I think the rise a rise in global temprature has an effect on CO2 being released.  But yes CO2 does affect the climate, as does every gas in the atmosphere.GOGOGOGURT
No...but yes? What? Does CO2 cause a greenhouse effect. Yes or no.
#81 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is the petition that guy is talking about.Ace6301

 

Yes put in better words than me. 

 

How does this prove me wrong?  This just supports what I said in that post.

Because that page has a breakdown of signatures. 0.1% have a degree in climatology. 39 people. People aren't listed under their profession so it's impossible to verify if it's actually even people. Quite a number of the names turn up no results. Even assuming it is true and even putting careers which have some degree of relevance toward climate change you end up with a little less than 0.1% of the current number of degree holders in said professions having signed this. But I like graphs  I know climate change deniers don't.

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

#82 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]No, I think the rise a rise in global temprature has an effect on CO2 being released.  But yes CO2 does affect the climate, as does every gas in the atmosphere.Ace6301
No...but yes? What? Does CO2 cause a greenhouse effect. Yes or no.

 

Yes, but not nearly as much as water vapor and other lighter gases.  Plus, a rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels, not the other way around.

#83 Posted by wis3boi (31184 posts) -

:lol: this thread....random internet guy arguing with science

#84 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

GOGOGOGURT
Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.
#85 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

Ace6301

Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.

 

We shouldn't give ourselves so much credit.

 

I respect your opinion.

 

Anyways, I've made my point, and from the wikipedia article it wasn't more than 31,000, so you were eather lying about the statistics, or you have like another 500,000 signatures? I don't feel like talking about this anymore, so don't bother replying.  Unless you want to get the last word in.  Don't care.  People on OT can't take the controversy anyway.

#86 Posted by sSubZerOo (43098 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

 

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

The earth has been much warmer than it is today.

GOGOGOGURT

No sh!t.. The earth was also a molten globe of fire with no atmosphere in the past..  Hilarious.

 

Yes it is hilarious.  That you can't see the significance.  It's been hotter in the past, and mammals thrived.  If mammals thrived, we can thrive.

 

Shoud have read the rest of my post.  Unless you're illiterate.

:roll:  Are you high? Thrived? Do you even understand what is wrong with this reasoning? We live in a society that covers the planet with some 6 billion people.. Having a significant weather pattern change of any kind can lead to mass starvation to numerous other problems...  Just this year alone we had the worse drought since dustbowl.. If this were to go on the next few years due to changing weather patterns, the United States would be in serious trouble.. We then have some 50% of the world's population having fresh water problems, which will only get worse with the climate change that is occuring.. 

#87 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

GOGOGOGURT

Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.

 

We shouldn't give ourselves so much credit.

 

I respect your opinion.

 

Anyways, I've made my point, and from the wikipedia article it wasn't more than 31,000, so you were eather lying about the statistics, or you have like another 500,000 signatures? I don't feel like talking about this anymore, so don't bother replying.  Unless you want to get the last word in.  Don't care.  People on OT can't take the controversy anyway.

So you have absolutely nothing to refute the data. Saying "Well these 39 climatologists, who may not even exist because the site I'm quoting won't give their names or credentials, have signed an internet petition!" doesn't mean anything. What statistic are you even on about? 12,000 scientists who are jobs that could have even the slightest knowledge about climate change supposedly signed that petition. 39 are climatologists. Of US scientists, which we have a database of if you didn't know, that 12,000 is less than 0.1%. I already posted the graph showing which different groups thought of climate change. You've yet to refute anything posted against your argument and I've refuted your petition.
#88 Posted by thebest31406 (3347 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

GOGOGOGURT

Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.

 

We shouldn't give ourselves so much credit.

 

I respect your opinion.

 

Anyways, I've made my point, and from the wikipedia article it wasn't more than 31,000, so you were eather lying about the statistics, or you have like another 500,000 signatures? I don't feel like talking about this anymore, so don't bother replying.  Unless you want to get the last word in.  Don't care.  People on OT can't take the controversy anyway.

Translation: I've been pwned.
#89 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

GOGOGOGURT

Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.

 

We shouldn't give ourselves so much credit.

 

I respect your opinion.

 

Anyways, I've made my point, and from the wikipedia article it wasn't more than 31,000, so you were eather lying about the statistics, or you have like another 500,000 signatures? I don't feel like talking about this anymore, so don't bother replying.  Unless you want to get the last word in.  Don't care.  People on OT can't take the controversy anyway.

LOL So in other words, you're accepting defeat.
#91 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
Not sure what the point of the article is since Germany still gets nearly 75% of their energy from fossil fuels. Of the remaining 25%...solar is only 20%.
#92 Posted by IPWNDU2 (2535 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

GOGOGOGURT

Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.

 

We shouldn't give ourselves so much credit.

 

I respect your opinion.

 

Anyways, I've made my point, and from the wikipedia article it wasn't more than 31,000, so you were eather lying about the statistics, or you have like another 500,000 signatures? I don't feel like talking about this anymore, so don't bother replying.  Unless you want to get the last word in.  Don't care.  People on OT can't take the controversy anyway.

 

You sir are a perfect example on why the ignorant should be educated.

#93 Posted by DaBrainz (7630 posts) -
[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Ace6301
http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is the petition that guy is talking about if anyone is wondering. Question for you: Do you think Carbon Dioxide has an effect on the global climate?

Yes finally one of you posted a graf!
#94 Posted by comp_atkins (31284 posts) -

Honestly, it just seemed like a slip-up...

kingkong0124
it would be refreshing for an interviewer... ANY interviewer, on ANY "news" show once, just-f'in once. call their interviewee out on the BS they're peddling.... sadly it is not the interviewers job to investigate facts and question people, just to promote agendas...
#95 Posted by LordQuorthon (5294 posts) -

 The rest have more important things to worry about

GOGOGOGURT

Like fighting the good fight against schools that teach evolution? 

 

 

#96 Posted by Optical_Order (5100 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

And the it's also a small percentage on your side.  And so what?  The rest have more important things to worry about than fearmongering an apocalyptic human casued warming. 

 

And I do think the climate is changing.  But I do not believe it's caused by humans, and it won't be catastrophic.  In fact, it might be beneficial as a explained in detail on page 3.

GOGOGOGURT

Personally I wouldn't consider 82% and up to be small percentages. Humans are destroying CO2 sinks while increasing CO2 production. A natural change of 100ppm of CO2 would take more than 5000 years. Human contributions decrease that time to 120 years. Also no it wouldn't be a good thing. The negatives outweigh the positives. That means it would be a bad thing.

 

We shouldn't give ourselves so much credit.

 

I respect your opinion.

 

Anyways, I've made my point, and from the wikipedia article it wasn't more than 31,000, so you were eather lying about the statistics, or you have like another 500,000 signatures? I don't feel like talking about this anymore, so don't bother replying.  Unless you want to get the last word in.  Don't care.  People on OT can't take the controversy anyway.

lol

#97 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

We should stop stealing the sun's energy because one day it's going to want it back.

#98 Posted by one_plum (6349 posts) -

We should stop stealing the sun's energy because one day it's going to want it back.

sune_Gem

In 5 billion years. We can wait.

#99 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

[QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

We should stop stealing the sun's energy because one day it's going to want it back.

one_plum

In 5 billion years. We can wait.

The Sun will be like...

"k guys i r dying i can haz energy back nao?"

And we'll be all like...

"No! :twisted:"

And then we'll die.

#100 Posted by one_plum (6349 posts) -

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

In 5 billion years. We can wait.

sune_Gem

The Sun will be like...

"k guys i r dying i can haz energy back nao?"

And we'll be all like...

"No! :twisted:"

And then we'll die.

Not our problem. Our descendants by then will no longer look like us anyway.