And yet the science of MMGW is innacurate as hell. Nothing is absolutee yet wont admit to that because it may cause you to think for your self.

Yes. We know you want to raise a generation of atheists. Some of us don't. The fed govt should stay out of it.

By who's definition? That could be really fun.

Parents would have to admit to their kids that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue.

Parents would have to admit to their kids that the first recession that Bush had started under Clinton.

Parents would have to admit to their kids that the current recession was caused by liberal policies.

I could go on and on...if liberal parents weren't allowed to tell their kids things that we all know are wrong...we could save this country. :cheers:

This is a good example of the point I made the other day about conservatives sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to science.

There is no debate amongst scientist on global warming, more than 95% of them that are established in climatology agree that this is happening. The questions being raised are by groups with a vested interest in continuing the status quo.

Its established that it is happening and your side chooses to be dumb on the issue because it fits your agenda.

The sad thing is you Really beleive this shit.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

Global Warming Petition Project


Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

I bet you still believe welfare is good for people as well?

And one more
http://www.planetseed.com/node/15221

http://www.planetseed.com/files/uplo...obal_temp2.jpg

Fred Flintstone must have really been farting back 425,000 years ago pushing his car around.

An example of things that we know are wrong that parents are teaching their kids...

I agree...let's make this shit illegal.

And we absolutely have to put a stop to this Santa Claus bullshit, too.:leaving:

No I am not. When you get revisionist history and affirmative action out of the public schools, then we can talk about whether everything that is not lockstep with the liberal ideals off the tax rolls. And, by the way, since privately educated students on the whole do better at testing than do publicly educated ones, including in the sciences, then it is impossible for the private schools to be substituting religion for science.

I am 100% sure you have taught your children things we know are wrong, at some point.

Except you eventually get to the point of having to explain where the matter or energy that initiated and composed the big bang came from.

It is also entirely possible that some supreme being capable of creating the universe:
1) Did so with mechanisms that involved the big bang and considers the universe a work in progress or
2) Is capable of creating a world complete with evidence supporting the existence of many things that are not occurring now.

For what it's worth, I find the Theory of Evolution to be wonderfully elegant and a great representation of how the earth's biological beings are developing. However, you cannot and never will be able to prove that the mutations that underly the selective advantages are not being guided in some way, rather than completely random as you would assert.

I do like the colored eggs she lays in the back yard.:seasix:

I said that one earlier. ;)

This thread us like being stuck on the pooper with a case of the shits.... Ya just cant leave.

BUT note the NEW ANTZ of your highlighted phraseology there

you eliminate that it's MAN MADE???? so it's the SUN with Sunspots going through a hysterical cycle of warming, so to the sun, it's maybe 1-2% hotter, but on THAT nuclear scale, it blows US off the map.....

fizzicks is a bitch, learn to adapt.....not cry.....

:seasix::hurray:

Every link you posted goes to groups that have a vested interest in debunking man made global warming.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the many of the same misinformation tactics that were used for years to convince the public that smoking wasn't harmful are now the same ones the energy companies trying use to debunk climate change?

Here is some info to consider -

Many debates about global warming seem to boil down to appeals to authority, with one side or the other citing some famous scientist, or group of them, to buttress a particular argument. The tone is often, “My expert is better than yours!”

Against this backdrop, some analysts have been trying for several years to get a firm handle on where climate researchers come down, as a group, on the central issues in the global-warming debate: Is the earth warming up, and if so, are humans largely responsible?

Now comes another entry in this developing literature. William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny.

The authors then classified those researchers as convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change, based on such factors as whether they have signed public statements endorsing or dissenting from the big United Nations reports raising alarm about the issue. Then the authors analyzed how often each scientist had been published in the climate-science literature, as well as how often each had been cited in other papers. (The latter is a standard measure of scientific credibility and influence.)

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.

The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view. The skeptics are also less influential, as judged by how often their scientific papers are cited in the work of other climate scientists.

“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence” of human-induced climate change “vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,” Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.

Climate-change skeptics will most likely find fault with this research, as they have with similar efforts in the past. For starters, Mr. Anderegg’s dissertation advisers are Christopher Field and Stephen H. Schneider, two of the most prominent advocates of the mainstream view of climate change; Dr. Schneider is a co-author of the new paper.

The climate dissenters have long complained that global-warming science is an echo chamber in which, they contend, it is hard to get published if one does not accept the conventional wisdom that humans are heating up the planet. So they argue that it is circular reasoning to claim a broad scientific consensus based on publication track records. The mainstream researchers reject that charge, contending that global warming skeptics do not get published for the simple reason that their work is weak.

In this long-running battle over scientific credibility and how to measure it, the Anderegg paper analyzes a particularly large database of climate researchers, and therefore goes farther than any previous effort in attaching hard numbers to the discussion.

Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change - NYTimes.com

of course, because the NYTimes is a very unbiased source

pfffft they're clearly the voice of 95% of scientists.

amended your statement to reflect the true nature of the MMGW climate scientist population. :thumbs:

It's funny JC criticizes a source (NYT at that) but then doesn't care about his sources that have a clearly stated goal of making shit up so that MMGW is a crisis that needs to be addressed through taxes, cap and trade, or whatever other way to cripple the current infrastructure.

I don't think it's that he doesn't care that his sources are biased just like those he criticizes... I think that he (and most others) are so unquestioning in their acceptance of the liberal agenda that they are honestly incapable of even seeing that their sources are biased.

From my experience, most liberals see the world in a very simple minded, black and white, binary manner. There are 2 answers to every issue. Their way and wrong. It is a deep rooted belief that is simply not open to debate.

When applied to a situation like this, joecoool's answers couldn't be any more perfect to demonstrate. There is absolutely zero chance that another view could be correct. He is so certain that he makes comments like:

His answer makes perfect sense if you think about it from someone who simplifies the world to true or false and fails to realize the infinite steps between the 2.


Again, it all comes down to the fact that for the most part, liberals are so delusionally self righteous that they are quite simply unable to distinguish between their opinion and a fact. The mere suggestion that they are not 1 and the same is unfathomable and completely beyond their grasp. To them, their opinion is the truth on which to base actions.

Think about this as you read and listen to what liberals have to say. All of a sudden, the origins of many of the stupid shit comments become much more clear.



liberals... tolerant as long as you agree with them.