He thinks that Fox news is horrible but he still trusts their reports when they coincide with his opinions. No, of course he can't see it.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
And you trust John Coleman... Who thinks that global warming is not being perpetrated by the wealthy but by the mysterious New World Government or a movement which is trying to establish a World Government... Ok. Good luck with that.
|
Quote:
|
Tadeo has a good point.
|
Quote:
And the people who signed aren't taking anyone to court, the guy who started the petition is. Or threatening to, I doubt it will ever reach court as its an empty publicity stunt to stir up distrust. |
Here's a quick article from Skeptic.com about that petition. Misleading By Petition
|
I was wrong then, it was NEARLY half.
|
Yeah, but someone is suing, so it must have merit!
|
Or at least he said that he would. That's basically doing it though, right?
|
Don't listen to any of these people, Coolinator. Your decision to stand up for your beliefs and not give into groupthink like these other bozos is respectable.
What's a global warming btw |
Quote:
|
Quote:
CLICK HERE TO BE DAZZLED BY SCIENCE! EDIT: Oooopsie. This blogger doesn't agree with Coolie. He can't be right, he must be funded by the BIG CORPORATE LOGOS! |
That's embarrassing, and wouldn't be possible if more of the public was science-literate. Not even most graduate students understand the scientific process.
The climate denial movement has been using the same exact tactics as the creationist/intelligent design movement: active circumvention of the scientific process, adopting sciency names for their publicity groups, taking science to court as if you can argue fact into being wrong, and never publicly going head to head with the science they are trying to discredit. The question on what science to believe has always been easily answered by what do most scientist believe, and the general public should always stick by that instead of trying to find justifications for their own pre-existing beliefs. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And SupaFly, you can keep saying that everything I put down is "discredited", please give us a better argument. Please tell us why there has not been a public debate about Man Made Global Warming? Please tell us why CO2 levels were much higher in the historical record and why global temperature stayed the same? Please tell us why in medieval times we had a warming period without the use of factories or cars? Please tell us why Ex-Global Warming Scientists say none of it is true and why existing Climatologists are always wrong and have been caught falsifying their findings? and finally, Please tell us why a Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade system will save the planet? Thank you. Quote:
|
Quote:
In fact, only a fraction of the data has been found to be misrepresented, and even when that has been corrected and taken into account, the correlation between CO2 increasing and OVERALL global warming remains valid. It is not refutable by anyone literate in the scientific community. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but the major sticking point between the skeptics and the proponents of AGW in the scientific community is that of CAUSALITY. There is no believing or denying, except among those who have no real knowledge. You claim the climatologists are "probably taking hand outs from some privately funded Global Warming foundation" - Which foundation? Which climatologists? You can't provide any examples, besides internet links to blogs and op-ed pieces. Yet you BELIEVE it to be true. (How ironic of you.) You call this all "Bad Science". :rolleyes Supe is right, you sound like member of the creationist movement. And, unfortunately, I'm being as objective as I can be. :( |
The cooling and warming of the globe is a natural cycle that we do not affect. You're attempting to take a well documented climate cycle and load it down with myths. Please differentiate between fact and fiction. Please answer the questions above.
Quote:
Quote:
........ Quote:
Did anyone else slightly chuckle at the allegation of me having the same mind set as Creationists while zealously being called a Heretic for not bowing before the altar of Man Made Global Warming. Like John Coleman said on that filthy show Red Eye.....it has truly become an religion. |
Question: How do you argue the point of scientific truth (not belief, or ideology but truth, demonstrable through what we know about physics, chemistry and/or mathematics) with a non-scientist?
Answer: You can't. Back to ignore. It's much less aggravating. :( EDIT: That graph to which you allude has a time-axis of hundreds of millions of years. We are looking on the order of a few hundred thousand years, or about the last millimeter of the time-axis. See above point on arguing with a non-scientist. |
No no Colonel, back to the sports forum to talk Madness with me man!
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm there, dude! [/hijack]
|
Quote:
Your entire argument is still that global warming is not real because it is not real. You have no evidence to support your side and you ignore the evidence presented to you that shows how you are mistaken. Therefore there can be no debate as you are just as flawed as those from whom you take your sources of information and are evidently incapable of thinking in abstract ways. You are stuck in the box. |
Quote:
Dam you corporate serfdom!!!! How I long to frolic in the fields of Erathia! |
How can I have a better argument if you only ignore it. You've already stated how experts should be completely disregarded, so then where can I get information from? I'd have to be just like you and quote from made up studies and people who didn't actually know what they were talking about.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.