• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Facetious

Moderated
Oh and ''global warming'' isn't a faith :1orglaugh
Listen, global warming is all about undermining the capitalist system, the very system that has produced prosperity and wealth for all who have fled oppression worldwide.
Global warming is also all about destroying the middle class in this nation via the imposition of nonsensical environmental laws and on and on and on

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacials


:angels:
 
of course they are that's becoz they're anti-science since their Imaginary Friend in the Sky tells them to reject reason, objectivity, rational and critical thinking in favor of blind faith alone

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/bill-nye-climate-change-deniers-unpatriotic/

Not that you would generalize, though, right? :glugglug:

So, I'm unpatriotic if I have an opinion other than the one where humans=bad, and they are responsible for climates changing on a planet that always has climates changing... Sorry, 'science guy', but you're a blithering idiot- no wonder you did a science show for little kids on Saturday mornings.

I have no ties, faith, or belief in any organized religion, and so there's nothing that tells me to reject reason. What tells me to be skeptical and think critically is that the climate of the many areas on planet earth is always in flux, and that there simply is not any credible evidence in my eyes that says we've affected our planet to the point of panic, pushing its livable status past the point of no return. Why was the name changed from global warming?

Instead of accusing others of blindly following an ideology, how about asking questions of these climate change pushers? To me, if you look around the world at this, it seems more like a push to introduce world-wide legislation and taxation than a genuine concern about people, the environment, or science. Money- that is what this all seems to be about. Otherwise there would be more discussion about science, and real, actual debate. Not former 2nd bananas making millions upon millions off of the fear of others.

Bottom line- I may not be able to prove there aren't man-caused factors in climate change, but the other guys are finding it increasingly hard to prove there are.

H
 

Mr Dragon

king of freeones
booooo
 
No global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html

BBC pension funds linked to climate policy (no wonder they just sat on those emails about Climategate)
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/

and ask yourselves, how much money has Al Gore made from this fraud and how much do you think he would lose if it were exposed?
http://www.generationim.com/

I don't have time right now to go into more detail about faith and global warming, maybe later on if I got the time to really think it through.

For now, just....follow the money.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
always amusing to listen to climate change 'sceptics'


"I'm not convinced by the science" they say


Does this view come from an extensive study of the many climate science journals which contain thousands of peer reviewed articles or just some article you read off a blog somewhere?

Let's face it: the climate change deniers are almost exclusively on the right wing. Their position is purely political. They're just butthurt over the fact that the greenies were right all these years and they can't bare to admit it.


So you can copy and paste a bit of highly selective science (or altogether junk science) from your favorite right wing pundit's website.... Big deal.
 
I do not deny that human activity is impacting the globe. To believe it has no impact is down right stupid IMHO. However, as recent "revelations" have shown, many so-called scientists in the the "climate change" area have been exposed for ignoring inconclusive data and data that does not support their hypothesis. That's bad science no matter how you cut it. You do not pick and choose data to confirm your hypothesis, people that had HS science classes should know that.

I also have a problem with using the umbrella of "climate change" to piggy-back other agendas, which seems to be occurring more and more. Just as "liberals" want "right wing nuts" to keep ideology out of science, so should they heed their own call to keep their own agendas out of the scientific research they preform.:2 cents:
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
So, I'm unpatriotic if I have an opinion other than the one where humans=bad, and they are responsible for climates changing on a planet that always has climates changing... Sorry, 'science guy', but you're a blithering idiot- no wonder you did a science show for little kids on Saturday mornings.

Instead of accusing others of blindly following an ideology, how about asking questions of these climate change pushers?

Exactly.

Plus, wouldn't the act of blindly following along with what everybody tells you to follow along with be extremely unpatriotic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that our country was formed based on the act of rebellion. If anything is unpatriotic here, it's the people who DON'T question the theory of Global Warming.

This is exactly why I've always preferred Beakman...



So you can copy and paste a bit of highly selective science (or altogether junk science) from your favorite right wing pundit's website.... Big deal.

The same exact thing is done for Global Warming supporters. There is just as much scientific evidence that disproves the theory of Global Warming, yet, the supporters completely deny the science that opposes their theory. So, who's being selective again?
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
No. There isn't.

I see no peer reviewed papers presented by the sceptics. Just selective data, misquotes and absolute junk passed off as science.

And you sir, are just as much of a denier as these so-called "Right Wingers" that you want to bash.

You don't see the science because you're not looking for it. You're not looking for it because you don't want to see it. Take a look at the reality of the world instead of just your beliefs on the issues at hand.
 
And you sir, are just as much of a denier as these so-called "Right Wingers" that you want to bash.

You don't see the science because you're not looking for it. You're not looking for it because you don't want to see it. Take a look at the reality of the world instead of just your beliefs on the issues at hand.

It's all well and good saying that Chef, but you are going to have to back up your assertions here. It's just not good enough to say something is there - especially within the realm of science - and not back it up with evidence.
 

maildude

Postal Paranoiac
Q: But it's been cold this winter, with lots of snowfall!
A: • The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.

I've read the claims and "hard empirical data" of both sides, and it's almost like each side has its own teams of environmental scientists. If this were true, it seems to me big corporations have the most to lose if global warming elicits governmental action. With the recent financial troubles of major American businesses, no expense is too great to silence global warming lobbyists. That includes the costs of disinformation.
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Bill Nye the Science Guy :rolleyes:

1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Oh and ''global warming'' isn't a faith :1orglaugh
Listen, global warming is all about undermining the capitalist system, the very system that has produced prosperity and wealth for all who have fled oppression worldwide.
Global warming is also all about destroying the middle class in this nation via the imposition of nonsensical environmental laws and on and on and on

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacials


:angels:

:hatsoff:
 

emceeemcee

Banned
And you sir, are just as much of a denier as these so-called "Right Wingers" that you want to bash.

You don't see the science because you're not looking for it. You're not looking for it because you don't want to see it. Take a look at the reality of the world instead of just your beliefs on the issues at hand.


I see it all the time, I've read what Plimer and Monckton have to say and it's been thoroughly demolished.


Like I said, all we are hearing from sceptics is selective/junk science, misquotes, misrepresentations. The article Red Spyder posted is a prime example:

Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.

The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.

The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’”.

Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”. Jones stated in his BBC interview that “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia” and that “For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”

These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008).

Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.

Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an response to some of the false allegations in a previous piece in the UK Guardian. We’ll report further such developments as they happen.
http://www.realclimate.org/
 
Being skeptic is healthy for a Democracy. However when the evidence is overwhelming, then policy needs to start changing.

It is much like when Big Tobacco would hire a few people to claim that tobacco did not cause cancer. Then the Companies would say "See! The data is not complete! We don't know for sure!”

That is exactly what is happening with the Climate Change debate. People that are arguing against Climate Change follow into a few categories:

• Ones that stand to make a lot of money by killing any legislation that may reduce carbon emissions.
• People that are simply confused and do no understand the scientific method.
• People that would rather use Climate Change as a political football than work to come up with solutions.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
Oh and ''global warming'' isn't a faith :1orglaugh
Listen, global warming is all about undermining the capitalist system, the very system that has produced prosperity and wealth for all who have fled oppression worldwide.
Global warming is also all about destroying the middle class in this nation via the imposition of nonsensical environmental laws and on and on and on

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacials

:angels:


1. Afix tinfoil head garment

2. Move to Montana and start building that bunker.
 
Top