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.
This is where the beast lives for all of you people, isn't it. This is what makes you DENY. That you won't be able to flaunt the F350 Duallie. I don't know what good the thing will do you when the military requisitions civilian gasoline stockpiles. Peak OIl has NOTHING to do with AGW but... if we migrate transportation to an all electric infrastructure, you will have something to drive in 25 years and, possibly a stable economic climate to drive it in. Fight it, and you will have the truck, but won't be able to perform enough sex acts on enlisted personnel to keep the tank filled. Nor will it even be safe for you to go outdoors, think Iraq.
it's telling that you feel performing sex acts on enlisted personnel is the proper way to acquire fuel in an emergency situation.
Your 0-for-everything record of failure remains intact.
Science works with evidence, not proof...Your ignorance of the scientific method is exposed again....No matter what evidence I post you would reject it, as you prefer to remain as you are.
Is it possible to have a negative score in your 0-for-everything record?
As I said it is your ignorance that is exposed, and I'm now fairly certain that it is what is called "willful ignorance".
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Common misconceptions about science I:
I am insulted. You can wax quite rhapsodic when you want, and finish up with one of your quaint sign off's. I want no less for my efforts here. You've destroyed nothing except your own credibility. Try again.
I'm all in on climate change. To what extent do humans contribute to climate change? What are 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 year predictions? What steps can realistically be taken (taking into consideration action and or inaction by other countries in the world) and what are the expected effects?
Changing from when and to what? What happens when it changes again after that? What is the benchmark from which that we mark any change and how do we know if it is bad or good?
I'm all in on climate change. To what extent do humans contribute to climate change? What are 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 year predictions? What steps can realistically be taken (taking into consideration action and or inaction by other countries in the world) and what are the expected effects?
Changing from when and to what? What happens when it changes again after that? What is the benchmark from which that we mark any change and how do we know if it is bad or good?
Science can answer your questions if you take the time to look.
Science can answer your questions if you take the time to look.
There's an awful lot of noise out there. Do you have some good websites that aggregate some information? I like to read the planning and directions portions since it's already been proven 100% to be happening. Where we are now and where we will be going is of more interest to me than trying to fight/score point against someone ideologically.
Have the manmade-global-whatever fanatics ever come up with an actual link between man's activites and the climate changes we are seeing? Or are they still ducking, dodging, shucking, and jiving away?
Climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, and that we send more and more of our resources to them, to change what they cannot change.
I'm all in on climate change. To what extent do humans contribute to climate change? What are 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 year predictions? What steps can realistically be taken (taking into consideration action and or inaction by other countries in the world) and what are the expected effects?
Changing from when and to what? What happens when it changes again after that? What is the benchmark from which that we mark any change and how do we know if it is bad or good?
Science can answer your questions if you take the time to look.
And if you're willing to settle for guesswork, speculation, "models", and wishful thinking instead of proof.
It isn't the AGW that will cause humanity's extinction, come on. Mammals aren't going to suffer from mere temperature increase. However there are many things that will. The fish we eat. They'll be gone. The plants. We'll have wars over water and access to it. If even one of those wars goes nuclear. Game over. 100 years. But even at 25 years you won't want to wait around for the finale.
Funny thing about the bee's and cancer too, by the way. AGW doesn't have anything to do with them, but, the exact same protocols that would address the one, would also neutralize the other! In other words adopting strict controls on vehicle emissions or by migrating the entire planetary vehicle fleet to electric power would go a long way to slowing AGW' progress AND would have a very positive effect on cancer rates. Two birds with one stone.
H
You see this is why we need comprehensive mental health care reform, Odumbo should have started by reopening the nut houses.
How long before this nut job shoots up some place while screaming "GLOBAL WARMING! GLOBAL WARMING! save the whales, kill the seals!"
bill
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.
