Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully we can put global warming right up there with all the other hoaxes the environmentalist conjure up for money and power.
Just off the top of my head:
New Ice Age
Deforestation
Acid rain
Overpopulation
Kuwati oil fires
Nuclear Winter
Ozone layer
SSTs
DDT
Food shortages
Water shortages
Land fill shortages
SARS
Swine flu
Three Mile Island
Love Canal
Oil shortages
Killer bees from Latin America
Desertification
Of course, all these either didn't happen or were extremely isolated incidents.
But the exact same people that claimed all these things want us to believe them this time. lols.
And these are just I can think up now. I'm sure with a little research I could expand the list ad infinitum.
thanks for the post. Now I dont have to worry about any scientific prediction. If killer bees didnt happen all scientific predictions are fooy.
No they're not, and you're deliberately misleading people, such as that graph you posted earlier.
No, you are, just like you mislead people with a step based analysis of the trends in the past. You apply Tamino/Skeptical Science/etc... analysis. You are wrong, have been wrong, end of story and I have no desire to argue over your misinterpretation of the results Nei.
The whole global warming scam shows the old adage that a lie will eventually be decimated by fact.
"Global Warming" was started as a tactic to-
1. decrease US industrial output
2. weaken the middle class
3. "transition" the US to alternative fuels by scare tactics
This, of course, turned out to be a disaster. Most would support intention #3. However, you achieve that by opening federal lands to gas, coal and oil exploration, tax the revenues 5%, and "earmark" those taxes for alternative fuel infrastructure. No lies- just a straight forward plan.
There will always be suckers who believe pseudo-science and will be fooled again in the future by another scam. Any "decisions" should be made on sound scientific evidence, and not "evidence" as created by politicians and journalists. Oddly, we have the same BS tactics being used for fracking now.
The main interest that concerns me are those who want to turn air into a bankable asset. However it does not need to start out as a plan of oppression. Even if we assume that global warming were true, it can easily be hijacked as a tool of oppression.
Well, to me, the smoking gun is the documented rise in temperatures on other planets in the solar system. Given that there are no factories on Mars, yet the ice caps on that planet have diminished, it should give pause.
Which planets? For how long? How much have Martian ice caps diminished? Could you tell us more details?
So estimates of an upward movement is correct, and actual upward movement in tempretures has occured, but movement in tempretures for that last few years doesn't match predictions, so then all other actual movement upward does not count..? OK.
No, you are, just like you mislead people with a step based analysis of the trends in the past. You apply Tamino/Skeptical Science/etc... analysis. You are wrong, have been wrong, end of story and I have no desire to argue over your misinterpretation of the results Nei.
You've given no reason why it's wrong over than saying "it's wrong". Why should I believe you? You've given no logical arguments against it. Do you have a real scientific or mathematical source saying that analysis is wrong. Why do you no desire to defend your own statements. You presented a misleading graph and now cannot defend it.
And step-based analysis? There's no steps in any analysis I presented nor in the sources I presented. Another misleading statement.
You've given no reason why it's wrong over than saying "it's wrong". Why should I believe you? You've given no logical arguments against it. Do you have a real scientific or mathematical source saying that analysis is wrong. Why do you no desire to defend your own statements. You presented a misleading graph and now cannot defend it.
And step-based analysis? There's no steps in any analysis I presented nor in the sources I presented. Another misleading statement.
Sorry Nei, I don't care for your methods, your approach, or ethical means of discussion. We both know your motive, your political position concerning this, argue with someone who doesn't know you.
Sorry Nei, I don't care for your methods, your approach, or ethical means of discussion. We both know your motive, your political position concerning this, argue with someone who doesn't know you.
So you are unable to give any substantial reason for what's wrong with them other than "I don't care for your methods" as well misnaming it? And you stoop to criticize my ethics. Low blow.
I have my position and I've defended it numerous times. You have yours.
You've given no reason why it's wrong over than saying "it's wrong". Why should I believe you? You've given no logical arguments against it. Do you have a real scientific or mathematical source saying that analysis is wrong. Why do you no desire to defend your own statements. You presented a misleading graph and now cannot defend it.
And step-based analysis? There's no steps in any analysis I presented nor in the sources I presented. Another misleading statement.
You have forgotten the basic principle of science-
disprove the null hypothesis
You do understand, don't you, that it is incumbent to PROVE any scientific theory with irrefutable data and evidence. The converse is lunacy. Otherwise, we would have the opposite of science, in which one could say
"Elvis is alive and well on Mars selling Italian Ice to aliens". If you cannot disprove it, it must be true! This is the problem when liberals, who have no degrees in hard science and have never published in the literature, attempt to claim the exclusive robes of scientific fact. In reality, the opposite is true, in that liberals embrace pseudo-science as told by journalists and reveal their lack of understanding of actual scientific methods and their own gullability.
So you are unable to give any substantial reason for what's wrong with them other than "I don't care for your methods" as well misnaming it? And you stoop to criticize my ethics. Low blow.
I have my position and I've defended it numerous times. You have yours.
Good for you. Like I said, I don't care what you have to say. Been there, done that. Waste of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the problem when liberals, who have no degrees in hard science and have never published in the literature, attempt to claim the exclusive robes of scientific fact. In reality, the opposite is true, in that liberals embrace pseudo-science as told by journalists and reveal their lack of understanding of actual scientific methods and their own gullability.
