Another incorrect "study".![]()
Another incorrect "study".![]()
Is the study incorrect, or are the results incorrect? In what way are they specifically incorrect? What fault do you find in the data? What data do you have that proposes otherwise?
Give us specifics, please, not an unintelligible three word response with a smiley.
Another incorrect "study".![]()
Nowhere in the article does it mention the name of the organization doing the study. It's not Ars Technica, that's just a news site. If I just somehow missed it, please let me know.
We need to know who conducted the study before we can take it seriously.
![]()
The only reason I'm so skeptic about "man-made" global warming is because it's so politized. I mean, what a coincidence that all the "solutions" for global warming happen to be described with the following five words: the rich nations pay more. Then when you have a POLITICIAN like Algore (wind bag) selling indulgences... sorry, I mean, "carbon credits" and making himself rich off it. I guess he really knows the meaning of "a fool and his money are soon parted" with so many naive people falling for it. Kind of like evolution. Its politization and the libs' smug attitude about it kind of makes me want to completely take sides with Will and his view of it, even though I know that, sure, evolution is possible, but we got to keep an open mind. When libs take the position that "the science is settled", no, it isn't!! Even fucking gravity isn't settled completly as how it works since we get new discoveries every few years or centuries that turn the science on its head. So that argument only shows an ************* to keep an open mind to other possible reasons or theories that might be correct.
Wrong.:tongue:
Indeed it is you delusional man.![]()
The only reason I'm so skeptic about "man-made" global warming is because it's so politized. I mean, what a coincidence that all the "solutions" for global warming happen to be described with the following five words: the rich nations pay more. Then when you have a POLITICIAN like Algore (wind bag) selling indulgences... sorry, I mean, "carbon credits" and making himself rich off it. I guess he really knows the meaning of "a fool and his money are soon parted" with so many naive people falling for it. Kind of like evolution. Its politization and the libs' smug attitude about it kind of makes me want to completely take sides with Will and his view of it, even though I know that, sure, evolution is possible, but we got to keep an open mind. When libs take the position that "the science is settled", no, it isn't!! Even fucking gravity isn't settled completly as how it works since we get new discoveries every few years or centuries that turn the science on its head. So that argument only shows an ************* to keep an open mind to other possible reasons or theories that might be correct.
You're wrong. :tongue:
Not at all.
Man-made as "global cooling", the ozone lie, and every other fear mongering tactic.
The only reason I'm so skeptic about "man-made" global warming is because it's so politized. I mean, what a coincidence that all the "solutions" for global warming happen to be described with the following five words: the rich nations pay more. Then when you have a POLITICIAN like Algore (wind bag) selling indulgences... sorry, I mean, "carbon credits" and making himself rich off it. I guess he really knows the meaning of "a fool and his money are soon parted" with so many naive people falling for it. Kind of like evolution. Its politization and the libs' smug attitude about it kind of makes me want to completely take sides with Will and his view of it, even though I know that, sure, evolution is possible, but we got to keep an open mind. When libs take the position that "the science is settled", no, it isn't!! Even fucking gravity isn't settled completly as how it works since we get new discoveries every few years or centuries that turn the science on its head. So that argument only shows an ************* to keep an open mind to other possible reasons or theories that might be correct.
Hey Will, I noticed you did not address my post, so I will repeat it. I am sure it is just an over sight.
Is the study incorrect, or are the results incorrect? In what way are they specifically incorrect? What fault do you find in the data? What data do you have that proposes otherwise?
Give us specifics, please, not an unintelligible three word response with a smiley.
George Carlin on The Environment (planet)
Premium Link Upgrade
They are incorrect just like global cooling was incorrect.
The earth goes through cycles. We can't fix or save the earth.
It will go when it does.
I will agree we should do things like some recycling.
And planting more trees. They should look into using other things like kenaf.
George Carlin on The Environment (planet)
Premium Link Upgrade
You know what "facts" and "data" are, correct? Since you have proven unable to provide both, you have only proven yourself to be an uninformed troll unworthy of any participation in any conversation resembling an intelligent one.
Ah yes, noted climate scientist, George Carlin. Where is Mr Carlin's published research on the subject? I would love to read it. Oh right, he's just another uninformed (dead) comedian that uninformed assholes in the internet love to use to back up their uninformed points.
Pathetic.

You know what "facts" and "data" are, correct? Since you have proven unable to provide both, you have only proven yourself to be an uninformed troll unworthy of any participation in any conversation resembling an intelligent one.

He does not have the mental capacity to comprehend facts and data. Sorry.
