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.
Still no meat. You really are a committed veggie aren't you? Wouldn't touch meat even to salvage his reputation!
Priceless.
Now here is one thing to ponder, given that, in your mind, there is no possibility that you are wrong in your contention.
True science is the quest for the truth, regardless of an initial premise, and is devoid of political influences. Why do you suppose that nearly all liberals feel that global warming is true, while essentially all conservatives believe man made global warming is false?
Do conservatives and liberals disagree on the concept of gravity? Is there disagreement that smoking increases one's risk of coronary disease?
"Global warming" is simply a political view expressed by liberals that is devoid of true and rational science. So far, there has been no convincing scientific evidence to demonstrate man-made global warming. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to refute this contention. However, the burden of proof is not to dispel the theory, but to prove it. There is no hard evidence to support the man-made global warming theory, therefore it is false.
I have observed that there are more people growing peaches and wine grapes in parts of New England that were too cold 50 years ago. I have observed that the winters in southern New Hampshire are now milder than the winters in eastern Connecticut were 40 years ago. Using these observations I have concluded this part of the world is getting warmer. I have seen reports from other parts of the world that also indicate the temperatures are warmer. From these direct and reported observations I have concluded the world is warming
I do not agree with or respect the the opinions of people that claim there is no evidence of the temperature trends over the last 50 years. I can only suppose they are either deluding themselves or trying to delude me. The first is irrelevant and the latter annoying.
Now here is one thing to ponder, given that, in your mind, there is no possibility that you are wrong in your contention.
True science is the quest for the truth, regardless of an initial premise, and is devoid of political influences. Why do you suppose that nearly all liberals feel that global warming is true, while essentially all conservatives believe man made global warming is false?
Do conservatives and liberals disagree on the concept of gravity? Is there disagreement that smoking increases one's risk of coronary disease?
"Global warming" is simply a political view expressed by liberals that is devoid of true and rational science. So far, there has been no convincing scientific evidence to demonstrate man-made global warming. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to refute this contention. However, the burden of proof is not to dispel the theory, but to prove it. There is no hard evidence to support the man-made global warming theory, therefore it is false.
Still no meat. Here's a thought: you're so convinced that you're right, have you ever consulted the evidence to check? Assuming that you're not just blowing smoke, you must have done. So why don't you show it to us?
Oh wittle Ewic looks a wittle scared. (Thanks to Sandra Bullock.)
I have observed that there are more people growing peaches and wine grapes in parts of New England that were too cold 50 years ago. I have observed that the winters in southern New Hampshire are now milder than the winters in eastern Connecticut were 40 years ago. Using these observations I have concluded this part of the world is getting warmer. I have seen reports from other parts of the world that also indicate the temperatures are warmer. From these direct and reported observations I have concluded the world is warming
I do not agree with or respect the the opinions of people that claim there is no evidence of the temperature trends over the last 50 years. I can only suppose they are either deluding themselves or trying to delude me. The first is irrelevant and the latter annoying.
Over here on this part of the West Coast winters have been long and summers non-existent for the past 3 years so I must conclude this part of the world is cooling. I also have heard that the upper Midwest as well as other areas have been experiencing record breaking cold for several years. So...?
We're both cherry-picking data and that will lead nowhere.
But, this isn't about whether or not the world is warming, now is it? I think it's safe to assume the vast majority of people realize that overall ocean temperatures have indeed risen. Some claim they have stabilized, some say they are dropping, some say they are rising, but very few if any have claimed there has been no rise the past century. The debate is about the cause; Natural or Man-made?
I have a small bit of education in meteorology. By no means an expert in climate but I do at least understand concepts. I tend to disregard many land based temp stations simply because weather on land isn't particularly stable. Just this weekend I rode my bike twice around Angel Island. One side was hot and sunny while the other was cold and foggy. That is not unusual for the San Francisco Bay Area. It's quite normal in fact. I have literally sun bathed on a beach in Alameda, then after driving less than one hour played in the snow on a mountain overlooking the bay. Once we get off the land, I tend to trust temp readings because they tend to be quite stable. As a young man in Texas, I enjoyed swimming in the warm gulf waters in January and dashing to my car where warm clothes and blankets awaited. Conversely, over here on the west coast, the water is always cold.
We can quote weather happenings till the cows come home but when you boil it down, it's the oceans that cover 3/4 of the planet, not our back yards.
I am no climate scientist. However what I have seen is lies and deception on the side of the AGW crowd. If the facts supported their hypothesis, there would be no need for lies and deception. Such would only be needed if there was a weak position and an agenda to push.
Still no meat. Here's a thought: you're so convinced that you're right, have you ever consulted the evidence to check? Assuming that you're not just blowing smoke, you must have done. So why don't you show it to us?
Oh wittle Ewic looks a wittle scared. (Thanks to Sandra Bullock.)
PS do you think I'm a liberal?
Of course you are a liberal.
Things to ponder-
1. the main "green house gas" is water vapor
2. CO2 rises in response to increased temperatures, not the other way around. The contention of global warming would be like saying that lung cancer causes smoking.
3. Average temperatures today are no higher than they were in the early middle ages.
4. The world emerged from "The Little Ice Age" in the mid 1700s, giving the impression of an "increase" in temperatures from that time.
5. The wobble of the earth on its eliptical orbit around the sun results in periodic 20,000 cycles of warm and cold earth temperatures. This is verified in the strata of ancient lake beds, which demonstrate these cyclical changes like a layer cake.
6. Tropical plant and animal fossils are found north of the arctic circle. These fossils are dated such that the position of the continent is the same currently as it was at the time the animals were alive (no continental drift argument)
7. Coal and oil is found above the arctic circle in areas which cannot currently support abundant plant and animal life.
8. The "data" showing increases in temperatures over the last 200 years have used "peak" high temperatures, rather than averages. The average temperature has varied little.
9. Sea levels around the world have been fairly constant. There have been areas with rising sea levels, as well as areas with lower sea levels.
10. Using the same "data", liberals concluded in the early 1970s that we were entering a new Ice Age.
One might ask as well- In what other area of science has there been such a rash of fabricated and altered data to "prove" a hypothesis. In good science, one is indifferent to the conclusion.
Because that error will completely destroy the economy, turn citizens into tax-slaves, and give government unprecedented powers to oppress. Which explains why only liberal freaks are pushing this agenda. That is their idea of utopia.
Everything becomes extinct eventually, why would we be any different? All it takes is a CME or gamma-ray burst of sufficient size and we could be toast tomorrow.
This is what you usually get from conservatives: A complete and utter inability to understand science, yet their sources of information on climate change (Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., themselves having no knowledge) turn what is a scientific argument into either a political or economic one, which their listeners have deluded themselves into thinking they understand.
That's why the Dumbing Down of America is so effective at making people believe that science is a fraud. And it's why it is also targeted and deliberate.
However, given the fact that I have published extensively in the literature and have conducted many bench scientific experiments, I have fairly extensive experience in being to evaluate the literature. You, on the other hand, would not know a valid study if it hit you over the head. That is the difference. Given that you have no background in science whatsoever, you do not have the tools and knowledge to determine whether the "studies" you are fed regarding global warming are valid or not.
Do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. You have no knowledge of science or what constitutes a valid study and it shows.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!
98% of climate scientists can agree on basic science and you listen to the other 2% on FOX News and have the audacity to lecture others on your "credentials"
This is what you usually get from conservatives: A complete and utter inability to understand science, yet their sources of information on climate change (Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., themselves having no knowledge) turn what is a scientific argument into either a political or economic one, which their listeners have deluded themselves into thinking they understand.
That's why the Dumbing Down of America is so effective at making people believe that science is a fraud. And it's why it is also targeted and deliberate.
.............. and you are a scientist?
I find it shocking that liberals presume superior intelligence and innate knowledge of nearly all topics, simply because they are a liberal. The "credentials" of being a political liberal allow one divine knowledge and the assured comfort of being "correct".
Liberals have convinced themselves of this to the extent that they presume every conservative has no knowledge of science (even if they have advanced degrees, have published in the scientific literature, have reviewed papers for the literature, have held faculty positions at academic institutuions, and have had formal training in principles of academic science). All the formal training is simply crap compared to the wanton opinion of a liberal. Amazing.
I guess I wonder why any patients come to me for advice when all they have to do is ask any liberal on the street in establishing a diagnosis and treatment plan.
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.
