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.
No, I base it on the scientific validity of their sources. I haven't failed anything, you just don't like me because I know the difference between scientific publications and what you guys produce.
you keep saying that you base everything on scientific publications, but then link to left wing bloggers. as for me not liking you, i have no idea if i like you or not because i have never met you. we disagree politically but so what? i dont judge people based on what they say over the internet. who knows if we met in person we might be best friends, or we might try to rip each other apart.
It's scientific proof that conservatives often operate with the fear based portion of their brains more than liberals do. While I disagree with man-made climate change 100%, I also disagree that "the man" is out to get you, gut you, and sell your kids off to sexual slavery or whatever else the conspiracy mongers can come up with.
Every thing is for sale, stolen airplane parts, the passengers parts, congressmen, DNA.
In tandem with the federal lawsuit, similar efforts by American youth, also guided by Our Children’s Trust, are aimed at state agencies in Alaska, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas.
In tandem with the federal lawsuit, similar efforts by American youth, also guided by Our Children’s Trust, are aimed at state agencies in Alaska, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas.
nothing new there. what will probably happen is the same thing that happens when environmentalists sue the government. a trial will start, and part way through the trial the plaintiffs, which ever environmental group it happens to be at that point in time, will work out a "deal" with the respondents, aka the government agency being sued, usually the EPA, where by the agency creates certain new regulations, and sets up stiffer fines for those not abiding by those regulations, and the agency in question also pays the plaintiffs attorneys fees as well. in other words the "trial" is fixed, but since there is no proof of that, the judge has to accept the "deal".
nothing new there. what will probably happen is the same thing that happens when environmentalists sue the government. a trial will start, and part way through the trial the plaintiffs, which ever environmental group it happens to be at that point in time, will work out a "deal" with the respondents, aka the government agency being sued, usually the EPA, where by the agency creates certain new regulations, and sets up stiffer fines for those not abiding by those regulations, and the agency in question also pays the plaintiffs attorneys fees as well. in other words the "trial" is fixed, but since there is no proof of that, the judge has to accept the "deal".
Oh, I forgot that you see the future....That must be nice for you.
Top Climate Expert's Sensational Claim Of Government Meddling In Crucial UN Report
Global Warming a complete scam. It can't be. It's all right wing conspiracy
Harvard Univ. Prof. On UN IPCC: ‘Serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments’ – Top climate expert’s sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report – UN Lead Author Robert Stavins ‘was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials’
just wait for the alarmist crowd to come in and make the claim that this guy is really a "denier", or he doesnt know what he is talking about, or he is not really a scientist but rather a blogger and he has no credentials. or they will say that he has no proof of his claims.
He's not a Harvard Professor and he's not a climate scientist. He's an economist. I'm sure that the AGW people will come along with more here in a few minutes. They can be surprisingly fast at times when invalidating any arguement they don't agree with.
just wait for the alarmist crowd to come in and make the claim that this guy is really a "denier", or he doesnt know what he is talking about, or he is not really a scientist but rather a blogger and he has no credentials. or they will say that he has no proof of his claims.
And yet you guys still try to pretend your argument is worth listening to. It's weird: you obviously understand why the right's claims have no merit, but you whine about people who point out that the right's claims have no merit. Why support positions you know have no merit? Why continue to embarrass yourselves for the sake of the idiots in the Republican party?
These are rhetorical questions.
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.
WE are the man
