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.
Except not a single peer reviewed paper on global cooling was ever published. Not a single one. Are you even bright enough to know the difference between the peer review process and pop culture magazines? It sure doesn't seem that way thus your stupid posts.
Who cares if a peer review paper was published or not. That does not change the fact that the same poeple that claimed cooling was happening now claim climate change is happening.
In between they warned us about urban sprawl, overpopulation, red M&Ms, acid rain, deforestation, warming, the ozone layer and many other calamities that were not real......but they are right this time? lols. And the solution is always the same. More money and power.
Do you know the difference bewtween science and a money/power grab? It sure doesn't seem that way thus your stupid posts.
Does having insulation in your house trap heat? The simple answer is yes but if your windows are wide open that heat trapping ability becomes largely irrelevant. You mention greenhouse gases and particulate matter in the same sentence, these have opposite effects in the atmosphere.
There is numerous variables that combine to effect climate, CO2 is only one of them.
Credibility does not validate or invalidate a given claim. Ones reputation does not establish their position as correct or incorrect. Not only is such completely unscientific, but it is also a logical fallacy. Science is not a process of who is the most reputable. Logical argument evaluation is not a process of picking the most trustworthy speaker.
A statement can be evaluated to its validity. It can be shown to be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Science is a process of verification, validation, and replication. That is, ones hypothesis is shown to consistently be true through results and those results can be replicated by another independently through consistent result as well. In science, results are everything, opinions are irrelevant.
Not only is your premise invalid, but it is misleading because you also dismiss the qualifications of a source based on an opinion of the source that is also not validated (ie McIntyre worked for mineral research, ergo he is lying). It is an accusation of reputation that is completely useless.
A liar can still state a fact, an honest person a lie, an expert a falsehood, and a laymen a fact. If we operate by your premise, we would never know because you establish validity based on an evaluation that has no bearing on the correctness of a given claim.
Frankly, your premise is not only invalid, it is intellectually absurd. Where on earth did you learn such a complete falsehood? Honestly, I am shocked to think one can have even a basic college education and state such a position. It is contrary to every aspect of logical thought. It defies the most basic principals of logic education that is learned from any entry level logic, philosophy, or scientific course. The ignorance of such a claim is astounding.
So you have no problem getting information from non credible institutions or organizations?
Why was there global warming before man was on the planet? These same scientific studies say it is too late to do anything about global warming. So what is the purpose of this movement? More taxes and more government control. Why is that option not in the poll?
Why was there global warming before man was on the planet? These same scientific studies say it is too late to do anything about global warming. So what is the purpose of this movement? More taxes and more government control. Why is that option not in the poll?
There was never global warming of this extent and rapidity.
There was never global warming of this extent and rapidity.
Actually there have been periods with much more warming in the past, but yes as far as we know it has never happened in a matter of decades or even hundreds of years.
So you have no problem getting information from non credible institutions or organizations?
That is what you got from that? Really?
Let me be clear, because apparently that went WAY over your head.
It is simple...
It is not WHO says it, it is WHAT is being said. If someone disregards something because of WHO is saying it without any attention to WHAT is being said, then... well... they are an idiot. Period.
As I said, ones reputation, authority, or status does not validate their position, it is the strength of their argument that does. Deny that, and... well... one is either a moron or of devious intent.
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.
