av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Geesh you've linked to things funded by government and you had no problem with that. Then again you are a hypocrite.
Global warming
- Thread starter mthbstr8
- Start date
Geesh you've linked to things funded by government and you had no problem with that. Then again you are a hypocrite.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
NASA report debunks greenhouse gas theory.
http://m.naturalnews.com/news/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
http://m.naturalnews.com/news/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
US Senate report: List of hundreds of scientist that have debunked the global warming myth.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=69845088&CFTOKEN=56054115
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=69845088&CFTOKEN=56054115
Not actual scientists versed on the subject.
So a gov't funded scientific study is the same as a crackpot's statements on a right wing blog that is repeated by a right wing tabloid?
Gotcha. As long as I'm clear on the rules you play by.
Did you read the article? Did you check the source?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known to human history, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[1] AIDS/HIV denial,[2] quack cancer medicine[3] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[4] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[5] The site has recently broadened to include extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control.
If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.
An actual US Senate report? I was waiting for the Inhofe report. Such an impeccable source to rely on.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/
Both require actual reading, not headline skimming.
Here's a tidbit for you:
The list was compiled by Inhofe’s staff without prior consent by the scientists themselves; Parkinson says some have requested to be taken off the list. Moreover, only 15% of the scientists listed had published in the refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.7 Precisely how these individuals line up with respect to their own political views and funding isn’t disclosed in the report and therefore can’t be easily discerned.
Since moreluck has posted her obligatory cartoon, you lose
oldngray
nowhere special
Not actual scientists versed on the subject.
So a gov't funded scientific study is the same as a crackpot's statements on a right wing blog that is repeated by a right wing tabloid?
Gotcha. As long as I'm clear on the rules you play by.
Did you read the article? Did you check the source?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known to human history, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[1] AIDS/HIV denial,[2] quack cancer medicine[3] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[4] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[5] The site has recently broadened to include extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control.
If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.
An actual US Senate report? I was waiting for the Inhofe report. Such an impeccable source to rely on.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/
Both require actual reading, not headline skimming.
Here's a tidbit for you:
The list was compiled by Inhofe’s staff without prior consent by the scientists themselves; Parkinson says some have requested to be taken off the list. Moreover, only 15% of the scientists listed had published in the refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.7 Precisely how these individuals line up with respect to their own political views and funding isn’t disclosed in the report and therefore can’t be easily discerned.
Since moreluck has posted her obligatory cartoon, you lose
and you use rationalwiki as YOUR source? rofl
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RationalWiki
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Yes we established his hypocrisy. Possibly the most hypocritical I've come across and that's a feat.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
An actual US Senate report?
Now how did I guess you'd claim government was the only valid source until they disagreed with you?
A minority report, not an actual gov't report.
And you use a spoof site. Well done.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So now government is not government? I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you think scientists are not scientists and peer reviewed isn't peer reviewed. We finally found something you can be consistent with.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
97% of scientists think that Global Warming is legitimate. I know that in your world the Earth is flat and everyone is free to think what they want, even if it's easily proven to be wrong. What is it like to be completely ignorant? Let us know, OK?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
When you can't make your case you just call someone ignorant.
That's rich.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light"
-Plato
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
I saw "breitbart" in the link. That tells me everything I need to know.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
China reconsiders carbon tax, citing Australia's planned repeal | smh.com.au
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carb...australias-planned-repeal-20140313-34nfp.html
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carb...australias-planned-repeal-20140313-34nfp.html
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
This post is just repeating what you hear Obama, Reed, and other moonbats keep repeating. "97%...blah, blah..." That's a made up statistic. Thousands of scientists refute man made climate change. "Flat earthers", "Climate deniers", and so on. Liberal talking points heard everyday.
Why don't you come back and visit this thread in 40 years so that i can show you your ignorance. Because the climate will be largely the same.
Take a moment and think about what liberals are proposing. They think incandescent light bulbs and SUV's are changing the climate when we have something called the sun so enormously powerful that temps can swing in places with extreme ranges. For example, this place in Russia has a record low and a record high almost 190 degrees apart...
Verkhoyansk, Russia.
Record high temp is 99.1 friend
Record low temp is -90 friend
That's a difference of 189.1 friend
Just this week where I live in MA, I was in short sleeves with a temp of 55 degrees. The next day it snowed and topped out in the mid 20's. That's climate change alright. And we are to believe the world is ending if the world's average goes up 2 degrees over a few decades?
We can't do anything about the sun, which almost completely determines our temperatures. I know democrats in Washington actually believe they possess such power, but c'mon, how can anyone with an ounce of logic think we can overpower the sun?
So what is the normal temperature for earths billions of years of existence? Has anyone determined this? Billions of years...and somehow our 100 years of an industrial society (a spec in history) can change a climate. So ludicrous. Is today normal? Is what was 78 years ago normal? Is the ice age normal? Was it normal when dinosaurs roamed the earth? Getting me?
