 |
|
 PoliticsForum 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." Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}. Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
9. Ottobre 2011, 16:20:35 I guess the 97% stats are disturbing to some people here. Get over it, you're in a minority of die hard conspiracists. hehehehehe 9. Ottobre 2011, 17:00:20 Argomento: Re:  (V): I'm not done yet. I'm going to make fun of your 97, 97 times.  9. Ottobre 2011, 19:00:31 Argomento: Re: Artful Dodger: can you spin around 97 times 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:37:41 Argomento: Re: Vikings: thanks for the idea. Then I'll fall down for 97 seconds while recovering from my dizziness. 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:18:30 Argomento: Re: I'm going to make fun of your 97, 97 times. Artful Dodger: Wow.. the actual figure of scientists saying you are wrong gets to you that badly?? 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:25:48 Argomento: Re: I'm going to make fun of your 97, 97 times. (V): almost as much as the amount of scientists who have lied and altered results 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:44:14 Argomento: Re: I'm going to make fun of your 97, 97 times. Vikings: And you get that from where??? The scientists who said "duck and cover" is a good way to defend against nuclear war?? Sarcasm at those scientists intended!! 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:40:42 Argomento: 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. 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:45:51 Argomento: 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? ... ok.. I know you don't ..... eheheheheh 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:49:15 Argomento: 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. 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:50:42 Argomento: 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: 3% of scientists is many? That's hardly a balanced claim. 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:53:52 Argomento: 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. 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:58:44 Argomento: Re: Your numbers are wrong. It's NOT 97 - 3. Get current. Artful Dodger: Then... show me figures that back up your claim from a reputable poll or survey. I did post results from a 2009 gallup poll, which is more current then your 2006 60 scientists so... .... nahhhhhh!! Btw.. a 250,000 scientists scientific union is over 4100 times bigger. so nahhhhh ... nahhhhhh 9. Ottobre 2011, 19:59:53 Argomento: Re: Your numbers are wrong. It's NOT 97 - 3. Get current. (V): As I said, the study your insist on citing is FLAWED. You lose. 9. Ottobre 2011, 20:01:47 Argomento: Re: As I said, the study your insist on citing is FLAWED. You lose. Artful Dodger: mmmmm not enough time to find something that disproves it..... ..Dodging only works for so long.... eheheheheh 9. Ottobre 2011, 20:11:20 Argomento: Re: As I said, the study your insist on citing is FLAWED. You lose. (V): than quit dodging. |
Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2025 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Torna all'inizio |