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.
Antarctic ice has been growing record high FOR YEARS.
and now when the Arctic one INCREASED (instead of alarmist "it is disappearing") more than half - they are going to play the game "oh, more than half, it is not much, if that would be three times, than it is much, but 60% I don't know, that's nothing, because my masters said so in the talking points memo today"
Still going on about how you can't do fractions
I got an idea. You give me your paycheck, and I'll give you back over half.
Good to see you agree that the global warming alarmists have such an agenda, and their big spokespeople have a huge financial stake in the game... I bet Gore will be sad that you left his fold, but he will get over it
You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.
Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.
Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.
Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.
You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.
Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.
He told me Al Gore made $100 with a TV station.
If Gore took 99%, you know what that means....
Somebody made off with a dollar. Who is it??? Follow the money!
he left off some zeroes, everyone knows it was 100 million.
Ah, "everybody knows". Great, nothing like backing up an empty unlinked claim with argumentum ad populum from a third party who didn't even make the original claim. This is just getting better and better.
Cause and effect is not always clear, the cause may not be clear, the effect can be well known and obvious via panoptic study.
We do known that Acid Rain and SMOG were the product of man's actions, and both have been mitigated via responsible science, technology and political activity. We know that any single observation or measurement is not conclusive of cause and that many factors are in play including the impact of coal and oil, much to the dismay of those who support industries which profit greatly from their procurement, processing and sale. Hence their efforts to discredit science and technology which threatens the Golden Geese.
Good to see you agree that the global warming alarmists have such an agenda, and their big spokespeople have a huge financial stake in the game... I bet Gore will be sad that you left his fold, but he will get over it
You notice Dave never talks about the science. He spends a ton of time talking about the motivations of people.
Even Dave cant touch the science so he talks about Al Gore hoping no one notices he only has zingers and no facts
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.
Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.
All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.
By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.
Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.
All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.
By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.
he left off some zeroes, everyone knows it was 100 million.
Ah, "everybody knows". Great, nothing like backing up an empty unlinked claim with argumentum ad populum from a third party who didn't even make the original claim. This is just getting better and better.
Do you always have to prove you're a fucking moron? It was a typo. Any sensible person could see that. Only A-holes with an axe to grind would make an issue of it.
99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.
Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.
99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?
The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.
Science is demonstratable evidence, not concurrence. According to the climate change worshipers, every weather event that occurs is evidence of global climate change. It gets hot, that is evidence of climate change. It gets cold, that is evidence of climate change. A bad storm is evidence of climate change. No storms, is evidence of climate change. Drought is evidence of climate change, but rain is also evidence of climate change. Go figure! You can't lose with that kind of logic train.
All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.
By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.
Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.
Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.
99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.
Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.
99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?
Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
Ah, "everybody knows". Great, nothing like backing up an empty unlinked claim with argumentum ad populum from a third party who didn't even make the original claim. This is just getting better and better.
Do you always have to prove you're a fucking moron? It was a typo. Any sensible person could see that. Only A-holes with an axe to grind would make an issue of it.
You posted $100, Finger-boy. And you brought it up in the first place; when I asked for details that's what I got. So that's my fault. Considering the historical depth of your perception I have to assume that's as deep as you thought it out.
Fuckin' denialists. Everything is somebody else's fault.
I've never seen a denier produce any good science to back up their claims. It's ALWAYS something political.
The simple fact that the earth has cycled through numerous ice ages and warm periods, and has done so before man ever entered the picture, is pretty much all the "good science" that you need. There is no evidence that what we have found, is any more than another spike in that long range history. Nor, do I dispute the idea that greenyhouse gasses can lead to global heating to some insignificant degree. What I do dispute is that pollution and greenhouse gasses have any more effect on climate change, than a rock in the river has effect on total water flow in that river.
You not disputing anything. You are just saying it and pretending its a dispute. But you lack...yanno...evidence, proof etc to dispute anything.
I didn't mention "warming", nor can a complex ecology be reduced to a single verb. I'm asking why the pH in the sea is dropping drastically.
.... Well, answer man?
pollution. already answered.
Then how come your own post says the opposite right above?
Let's see it again in slow motion:
pollution ... does ... not ... cause ... climate ... change
You understand what the word "not" means?
All this ^^ to evade the simple responsibility to clean up after ourselves.
By this logic when I drop a sandwich on the floor I should just leave it there. Because rats already exist and they're going to exist whether they have that sandwich to eat or not. Therefore I have nothing to do with their arrival. It's the cycle of nature. And I'm off the hook.
Your logic is beyond belief. Speaking the truth is not evading anything. You want a clean house, clean up the sandwich. Don't try to blame the neighborhoods rat problem on your neighbor's dropped sandwich.
Not to mention, the discussion here is about the science of global climate change, not your desire for a cleaner environment.
Actually it's your logic. I just took it to a familiar circumstance to demonstrate how silly it is to bend over backward looking for forced excuses to not clean up.
I'll revert to the usual boiled-down question: whether we can 'prove' that pollutant X is causing climate impact Y or not .... what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?
Whether that dropped sandwich goes on to attract a rat or not -- what the fuck is the harm in cleaning it up?
Let me know when this analogy begins to sink in like carbon dioxide acidifying the sea wiping out mollusks by the millions.
Until then, keep looking for a way out.
pollution. already answered.
Then how come your own post says the opposite right above?
Let's see it again in slow motion:
pollution ... does ... not ... cause ... climate ... change
You understand what the word "not" means?
yes, do you? you asked why the PH of the oceans was changing, I correctly answered, due to pollution.
there is no proven link between pollution and climate change.
pollution is bad, we need to stop polluting our planet. we need to find ways to stop india and china from polluting it.
you lefties make an unproven link between pollution and climate change. Sorry, it ain't there.
99% of the money is going to the members of the AGW cult.
Pease do follow the money. It leads to the conclusion that AGW is a giant con.
99% of what money? I'm sure you have a link that backs up your claims, no?
Maybe Bripat didnt see this. I'll tag him to be sure this time [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
