Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Liste over diskussionsborde
Du har ikke rettigheder til at skrive meddelelser til dette bord, Mindste medlemsskabsniveau nødvendigt for at skrive til dette bord er BrainBonde.
Emne: Re: By your own argument, those scientists should be disqualified from consideration since they are supported by monies from those that benifit from the global warming hoax.
(V): Your numbers are wrong. It's NOT 97 - 3. Get current.
Emne: Re: By your own argument, those scientists should be disqualified from consideration since they are supported by monies from those that benifit from the global warming hoax.
Emne: Re: By your own argument, those scientists should be disqualified from consideration since they are supported by monies from those that benifit from the global warming hoax.
(V): Don't get it do you. The "study" you're using is flawed. It excluded input from many scientists. Hardly a balanced study. Easy to conclude that the "findings" were intended to lean in a particular direction.
Emne: Re: By your own argument, those scientists should be disqualified from consideration since they are supported by monies from those that benifit from the global warming hoax.
Artful Dodger: Then... to play a level field no scientists can be used here. HAHAHAHA
Got the scientific knowledge to back up and make a claim proving climate change is wrong?
And I shouldn't even call it a study as that isn't accurate either. A limited survey is more like it. Very limited. The "study" Jules is using EXCLUDED a huge number of climatologists and other scientists. Much like surveying ONLY CONSERVATIVES on an issue and using the data to generalize the position of a populace.
Emne: Re: I'm going to make fun of your 97, 97 times.
(V): By your own argument, those scientists should be disqualified from consideration since they are supported by monies from those that benifit from the global warming hoax.
BTW, even the study you have used to claim this inflated 97% is both unscientific and flawed. So even if you repeat it 97 times, it will still be a bogus claim.
In the history of candidates, Obama has taken MORE contributions from Wall Street than ANYONE ELSE! And yet the lemmings in OWS are for Obama, and against his support network? How "duh" is that???
Emne: Re: Where is the outcry from the leftist here about greed, scientist would lie
Vikings: Right.. that makes no sense whatsoever. Inherent in my statement was the matter of all the propaganda you in America have been fed through out the cold war.
... hence "duped"
Business and a bought government (whichever side .. Dems or Repubs) that has been generated and fed to you guys since before you were born.. .. probably.
Emne: Re:97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis
Artful Dodger: You do have some proof of this? Some article or leak from an reputable source >>> not like Bush and his Fake WMD's <<<
As for Al Gore... that means everyone else is wrong because a politician beefed things up... Like those old WWII films stating the good old USA won the war purely by being the USA!!
Golly. How many politicians beef things up.... Or like with Palin stating that she ain't decided on whether she's running or not and please donate.
But her Daughter leaked by accident that she does know, it is decided.
Emne: Re:I know enough of chemistry to know that you cannot pollute or add to a closed environment (as in the atmosphere is covered by a vacuum) ....and have no effect.
(V): In other words, man made global warming is true because you own a car???
Where is the outcry from the leftist here about greed, scientist would lie costing every man woman and child on this planet trillions, simply for their own greed?
oh thats right, because this greed promotes socialism and leftist getting rich
Another lie claims that there is a consensus among climate scientists that a known man-made global warming crisis exists. Official statements to the contrary presented by more than 650 international climate-related experts who presented contrary official testimony recorded in a 2008 U.S. Senate minority report suggest otherwise. So do petitions signed by more than 30,000 scientists that have challenged IPCC's 1995 procedures and report representations. Those circumstances prompted Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University to write in The Wall Street Journal: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report."
S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and University of Virginia professor emeritus commented about these sorry circumstances stating in part:
"Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA [director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the 'evidence' was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed."
The claim that climate change is human caused is based solely on speculative theories. Warming modeling predictions are unproven and flawed. AND, many (if not most) of those scientists that promote the man-made global warming scenario earn their living ONLY if they hold to their global warming positions. hmmmmmm
Emne: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject?
(V): Here's a fact for you: 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.
Emne: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject?
Artful Dodger: I know enough of chemistry to know that you cannot pollute or add to a closed environment (as in the atmosphere is covered by a vacuum) ....and have no effect.
It's amazing though that despite the banks and their recklessness that caused so much financial difficulty for our countries, that the right concentrate on some rubbish.
.. Oh wow.. the whole of Wall Street is at threat from a bit of rubbish. It's "The Stuff" all over again!!!!
The Tea Party never made a mess of public property and always left it better than when they arrived. No hate speech, no violence. And yet Dems were all over it with criticisms. And yet with Occupy Wallstreet, they are all in favor. Pelosi says, "God bless them." This in spite of all the racial slurs, violence, and thrashing of public property. See for yourself.