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 don't believe in any pole that says they support gov. action. As the American treasure said, there are lies damned lies and statistics. How were the questions even presented. You can get a pole that says Americans support killing babys at two years old if the question is presented in a way to deceive and get the desired result. Many liberal nuts signed a petition to stop Women's Suffrage. So when you explain that what Gov. would actually do I bet dollars to doughnuts that the same signers will back away. Not to mention the Global warming crowd keeps getting egg on their face, Its getting hot its GW its getting cold its GW, when it fits GW its GW that is the cause when it does not its only weather and not climate and you don't know the difference. Its a heads you win tails I lose BS.
The Register is a climate denial propaganda site, and the author of this article, written in 2012, Lewis Page, has no qualifications in climate science and has zero credibility.
Quote:
“All the carbon-spewing machinery the human race now possesses - powerplants, transportation, boilers, the lot - can be kept running for its entire designed life without any significant ill effects on the planetary ecosystem....Lewis Page
Last week, on October 6th, The Guardian published a story under the headline "Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds.". A day later, tech website The Register published a climate story of its own, "Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun," at a URL that ended "/solar_as_big_as_people/."
The Register is a climate denial propaganda site, and the author of this article, written in 2012, Lewis Page, has no qualifications in climate science and has zero credibility.
Last week, on October 6th, The Guardian published a story under the headline "Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds.". A day later, tech website The Register published a climate story of its own, "Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun," at a URL that ended "/solar_as_big_as_people/."
The Register is a climate denial propaganda site, and the author of this article, written in 2012, Lewis Page, has no qualifications in climate science and has zero credibility.
Last week, on October 6th, The Guardian published a story under the headline "Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds.". A day later, tech website The Register published a climate story of its own, "Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun," at a URL that ended "/solar_as_big_as_people/."
I understand though that you have nothing to back up your false claims but opinions and falsified graphs.
I've noticed that whenever someone posts anything that disproves something you say or provides a link when you demand one, your response is invariably to say the source has not credibility. That works a time or two, but it's getting old. Every single solitary shred of evidence that doesn't support your point of view can't all be fabricated. That pretty much puts you in the same area of having zero credibility as you try to claim about your opponents. You're starting to look like the boy who cried wolf once too often.
I've noticed that whenever someone posts anything that disproves something you say or provides a link when you demand one, your response is invariably to say the source has not credibility. That works a time or two, but it's getting old. Every single solitary shred of evidence that doesn't support your point of view can't all be fabricated. That pretty much puts you in the same area of having zero credibility as you try to claim about your opponents. You're starting to look like the boy who cried wolf once too often.
Or it's because the only places deniers can find anything to support their views is from science denial blogs, conspiracy websites and infotainment sources and is a load of crap.
I've noticed that whenever someone posts anything that disproves something you say or provides a link when you demand one, your response is invariably to say the source has not credibility. That works a time or two, but it's getting old. Every single solitary shred of evidence that doesn't support your point of view can't all be fabricated. That pretty much puts you in the same area of having zero credibility as you try to claim about your opponents. You're starting to look like the boy who cried wolf once too often.
I'll accept any any all evidence that has been peer reviewed by experts in the field of study....I do not consider opinions by a writer who has no expertise in climate science evidence....It is not evidence.
I'll accept any any all evidence that has been peer reviewed by experts in the field of study....I do not consider opinions by a writer who has no expertise in climate science evidence....It is not evidence.
These fake 'skeptics' (aka science deniers) don't seem to realise that ACC is mainstream science. It's like arguing with people who don't accept the theory of evolution and who keep providing links to answers-in-genesis or some other religious website as 'evidence' against evolution.
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.
