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.
I stated a data point. Any implications are entirely on your side.
No, it was on YOUR part.
Stating random data points as a "refutation" or a "defense" of an idea is not simply randomly stated trivia, it was couched with words that gave it implication.
So, you've been caught. Apologize for the attempt, move on.
um.. yeah it is.. How can you people be so ignorant about basic history but expect us to take you seriously in regards to much more questionable issues?
So that gives Coleman a pass to question him about how he came to his opinion that he expects people to accept as a fact? Maybe you should start questioning Coleman rather than giving him a pass.
No, it doesn't.
And nobody gave him a pass.
You stated, as if fact, he is a hack journalist who has done no research.
High School in Aargau, Switzerland, followed by a 4-year degree in mathematics & physics at the Zürich Polytechnic, a 2-year break from academics and then a PhD from the University of Zürich.
So they taught how to make light bulbs and telephones in college? Well dam.. I learn something new everyday..
And, no AGW promoter has ever provided any data to prove their AGW theory, either.
But, funny how you didn't use that standard just a few posts back. In fact, you quite obviously implied that just being 'scientist' was enough to make someone credible - and from the tenor of your posts - pretty much "infallible".
In reality, I watched a slightly longer than 30 minute video of Mr Coleman, where it becomes obvious he HAS quite extensively studied the genesis of the theory of AGW, and why the "science" isn't science and never will be.
Promoter? Sure, lots of people have been wrong about things they believe in. That is why when it comes to global warming, I prefer to rely on the information scientists learn from their research as fact rather than "promoters" and "deniers."
Well if you are wondering, I would accept research from a scientist over a hack journalist. That seems to be common sense.
Oh really, Coleman has extensively studied the genesis of the theory of AGW? Do you have a link to this research he has done? I would love to read up on it.
Yea, really guys, there is no such thing as climate change. I tell ya, it's all a giant conspiracy to raise your taxes and make Al Gore a King! I heard it on Glenn Beck just the other day!
Meanwhile, in the real world, where functionally literate adults live...
So that gives Coleman a pass to question him about how he came to his opinion that he expects people to accept as a fact? Maybe you should start questioning Coleman rather than giving him a pass.
Coleman isnt here for me to question how he came to that conclusion, YOU ARE, therefore I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion he did no research..
I've been reading on this topic for some time. Coleman's statement is not new. He's been saying it for some time. The other statements in the OP are also correct. There is no current evidence of global warming. At this point in time, we are in the middle of a warm period. Temperatures this warm and warmer have been recorded previously in history. All the global warming claims come as a result of climate computer models, which have all been incorrect, since they over estimated the temperatures we would be having this year.
You stated, as if fact, he is a hack journalist who has done no research.
That's two affirmative factual assertions.
For which you have no evidence or fact.
Yet you and other members here haven't bothered to question Coleman....why is that?
He is a hack journalist because he is pretending to be a scientist without there being any proof of his research. Let me know when you find copies of Coleman's research.
I've been reading on this topic for some time. Coleman's statement is not new. He's been saying it for some time. The other statements in the OP are also correct. There is no current evidence of global warming. At this point in time, we are in the middle of a warm period. Temperatures this warm and warmer have been recorded previously in history. All the global warming claims come as a result of climate computer models, which have all been incorrect, since they over estimated the temperatures we would be having this year.
Ha Ha Ha…..Another expert weighs in…..
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.
How can you people be so ignorant about basic history but expect us to take you seriously in regards to much more questionable issues?
