Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Kinda like the movie reefer madness lol. Didn't work for the war on drugs, wont work for GW. When people find you are lying to prove your point, they tend to not listen to anything you say.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AGW Skepticism and Rationale (Warning: Long)
- Thread starter TopGunna
- Start date
Kinda like the movie reefer madness lol. Didn't work for the war on drugs, wont work for GW. When people find you are lying to prove your point, they tend to not listen to anything you say.
It is on the record at this point that the IPCC was quite courrpted with several revisions made without consent.
Reading your link (which was indeed quite convincing, however:
Global Warming: More Hot Air
perhaps the reason so much back door tinkering was done is because some felt the urgency to be so great that corrupting the data for the sake of getting a message across was worth it.
Howard Hayden is a retired physicist who has never written a peer reviewed article on climate.
Here is the real science on global warming...
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Howard Hayden is a retired physicist who has never written a peer reviewed article on climate.
Here is the real science on global warming...
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
I read your link in full and my opinion on it is probably not clear. It is very convincing. The purpose of my link was to show that their is always going to be an oppossing view or more specifically always someone that will attempt to refute someone else. The other point would be that if this is such an open and shut case why the deceoption of the IPCC report? And as far as Hayden is conerned, why did Weart only tell part of the story?
I read your link in full and my opinion on it is probably not clear. It is very convincing. The purpose of my link was to show that their is always going to be an oppossing view or more specifically always someone that will attempt to refute someone else. The other point would be that if this is such an open and shut case why the deceoption of the IPCC report? And as far as Hayden is conerned, why did Weart only tell part of the story?
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about the IPCC report or Al Gore. The facts about CO2 are irrefutable. The only thing in question is the sun, and the Stanford Solar Center scientists say that the sun is only 25% of global warming at the most.
We melted the pole in 50 years. I am amazed that people aren't shocked by that. Even Bush and Exxon now accept global warming. Nonetheless, like Custer at Little Big Horn and the Jewish zealots at Masada, a small if dwindling band of global warming deniers continues to fight on, insisting that as long as they hold out against the hordes of smock-clad scientists, no consensus can be said to exist.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about the IPCC report or Al Gore. The facts about CO2 are irrefutable. The only thing in question is the sun, and the Stanford Solar Center scientists say that the sun is only 25% of global warming at the most.
We melted the pole in 50 years. I am amazed that people aren't shocked by that. Even Bush and Exxon now accept global warming. Nonetheless, like Custer at Little Big Horn and the Jewish zealots at Masada, a small if dwindling band of global warming deniers continues to fight on, insisting that as long as they hold out against the hordes of smock-clad scientists, no consensus can be said to exist.
There you go again saying anyone who does not believe everything you say is a GW denier. Will this cycle never end
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about the IPCC report or Al Gore. The facts about CO2 are irrefutable. The only thing in question is the sun, and the Stanford Solar Center scientists say that the sun is only 25% of global warming at the most.
We melted the pole in 50 years. I am amazed that people aren't shocked by that. Even Bush and Exxon now accept global warming. Nonetheless, like Custer at Little Big Horn and the Jewish zealots at Masada, a small if dwindling band of global warming deniers continues to fight on, insisting that as long as they hold out against the hordes of smock-clad scientists, no consensus can be said to exist.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
THE SUN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 100% OF THE EARTH'S WARMTH...you are an ARTARD.....
There you go again saying anyone who does not believe everything you say is a GW denier. Will this cycle never end
How come the pole melted?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
THE SUN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 100% OF THE EARTH'S WARMTH...you are an ARTARD.....
Sorry, the Stanford Solar Center scientists disagree with you.
Global Warming -- Research Issues
Last edited:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
THE SUN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 100% OF THE EARTH'S WARMTH...you are an ARTARD.....
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
How long have we been looking for the NW passage again Kirk?
25% of the suns radiation is what is makes it to our atmosphere. That 25% along with the earth's natural warming from within makes up the warmth and heat that you and I enjoy every day....
Pluto's surface is roughly between -387--369 degrees Farenheit....I bet it would be warmer if it were closer to the sun...
How long have we been looking for the NW passage again Kirk?
Why is the pole melting?
Why is the pole melting?
The question Kirk, is why is it frozen? THere has to be water before it turns to ice correct? So would we not be returning to normal?
The question Kirk, is why is it frozen? THere has to be water before it turns to ice correct? So would we not be returning to normal?
Why is the pole melting?
Why is the pole melting?
Because the that part of the earth may be warming. Is it caused by humans? Can't prove it.... Is it caused by CO2? Can't prove it....
Can you explain why the coast of Texas had 12 inches of snow a a few years ago. Now you answer why it's frozen in the first place? The North Pole melting tells me nothing but that it's returning to it's orginal form...water. Which would have been what that region was ORIGINALLY like.
There is more at work than you, I, or scientist can even imagine to know.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Why is the pole melting?
How long have people been searching for the NW passage?
How long have people been searching for the NW passage?
Since the Vikings....
Because the that part of the earth may be warming. Is it caused by humans? Can't prove it.... Is it caused by CO2? Can't prove it....
Can you explain why the coast of Texas had 12 inches of snow a a few years ago. Now you answer why it's frozen in the first place? The North Pole melting tells me nothing but that it's returning to it's orginal form...water. Which would have been what that region was ORIGINALLY like.
There is more at work than you, I, or scientist can even imagine to know.
What is causing that part of the earth to warm?
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Since the Vikings....
And thats mellinia right?
jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
Here is a good outline of the science behind global warming. I warn you...the Western Fuels Association did not fund any of this research.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Nope just millions of dollars in government grants, book deals, money for speaking engagements......etc....
Similar threads
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 358
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 247
- Replies
- 84
- Views
- 439
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 73
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 29
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-