Red1966
Well-Known Member
Do they have seeds?have you never heard of ice cores?
Do they have seeds?have you never heard of ice cores?
Yet all your claims are BS. Such a conundrum!I never made a bullshit claim I couldn't cite, that was you. squeal a little more, piggy! LOL!
Why is a manufactured graph of something with no supporting evidence even a consideration?
Yes, in 1400, nearly all scientists agreed the world was flat. And tobacco causes global warming.There is a well explained mechanic for co2 - a greenhouse gas being the cause of global warming. There is no such mechanism for an explaination for Co2 increases following some unknown cause of warming. That the earth has warmed in the past has no bearing on this argument. Solar activity has been ruled out, cycles being what they are mean nothing in this instance - we just "happen" to have been pumping unheard of amounts of green house gas at the very same time as the beginning of a warming cycle. Coinsidences are rare in nature but that is what you are contending. Certainly we have seen past warming cycles attached to solar activity and perhaps even vulcanism but in the scheme of things those are just noise obscuring the genuine data. As I have said, the "debate" is artificial, injected into the public discourse for political and economic reasons. Canna and I have both pointed out that a very real parallel to our current situation is the scientific debate surrounding the causality of cancer with regard to tobacco. Scientific findings were delayed by 50 years in the interest of a cigarette status quo. This is no different and we can trace this institution of doubt by self interested and monied forces. If the vast majority of peer reviewed research resolves that there is indeed an occurance of man made global warming and there are very few pointing the other way, one could hardly call that a "raging debate". Those same self interested organizations are perfectly happy to entertain your belief that there is a "raging debate".
Yet, this has nothing at all to do with global warming.Anyone who doubts man is hurting the ecology of our planet needs to drive across the Rouge bridge on 75 going into Detroit. 30 years ago it was hold your breath bad, now it just smells like rotten eggs (so it's a little better). You can't possibly breath that air in and think it's not damaging something.
i'm not making any claims, i'm simply deferring to the vast majority of publishing, peer reviewed climate scientists who have come to overwhelming consensus on the issue.Yet all your claims are BS. Such a conundrum!
nothing that contradicts your bible thumping worldview is worth your consideration, you're prejudiced.Why is a manufactured graph of something with no supporting evidence even a consideration?
he's pointing out that the activities of man have an effect on the environment. does this upset you, stormfront red?Yet, this has nothing at all to do with global warming.
They certainly are. Politics determines what "facts" you are told, what "data" is compiled and what is discarded. The politicians, oportunists, and fear mongers can't tell you what to think, but they can fool you into false conclusions, which works just as well.Echelon, the politics of carbon credits are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. They're not really relevant to the debate of whether or not anth. global warming is scientifically sound. cn
romney and his band of merry old science haters have certainly fooled you into a conclusion contrary to that of the overwhelming and vast majority of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists.They certainly are. Politics determines what "facts" you are told, what "data" is compiled and what is discarded. The politicians, oportunists, and fear mongers can't tell you what to think, but they can fool you into false conclusions, which works just as well.
OK .............. lameno, that would be your crowd, the ones calling ACC a hoax. i'm simply deferring to the vast, vast majority of scientists who have reached overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. i await your next lame reply.
you're right, it's closer to 100% than 90%.Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?
No they don't. Why not just say 99%???
dude, you showed up and the first thing you did was try to lie on the internet to be cool or something.Like I said, BS!
Nothing what-so-ever about him making millions. Also, he says he doesn't see evidence that warming is caused by man. "Richard Muller, formerly a prominent climate change skeptic, said he now believes global warming is real -- but doesnt know what causes it." So how have you proved me wrong? All you've proven is that you see things that just aren't there. You're getting more shrill as you age, Bucky.lol, you make it too easy, red. you fucking idiot. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870
Earth, one million years old (at least). Accurate weather records 50-100 years old (at best). Human and political greed....timeless...... Now go figure!
It's your list, not mine. Are you having trouble keeping up?go ahead and choose some "scientists" off that list at random, stormfront red. the vast majority of them are nowhere near climatology, are dead, or are otherwise completely meaningless to the issue. go ahead. please list some of them. you must be one of these people who goes to a dead mechanic to fix your whooping cough. no wonder your family all died, you were bringing them to the wrong people for medical care.