Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ptif219, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I offered 10:1 bet that warmers will answer not my questions. It means that I was ready to pay $10 if I get answers and receive only a buck if I don’t. Nobody has shown up to take my bet. Now I raise it to 100:1.
     
  2. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is your opinion. I did not call anyone murders. Ernest Hemingway did not do. We don’t see that naming murders is absurd and pointless when death of hundreds of people is reported and could have been prevented. We see a human life as sacred. Of course, it does not include lives of murderers and scientists for the latter do not value human life.

    I did not name murderers. You did.


    I live on the planet Earth. I do see extreme and abnormal colds reported in the Western Europe, Russia which alone is 1/6 of the global lands, China, Istanbul, Japan as an essential part of global temperatures. If scientists do not, I accept that my reports about the events are irrelevant. Do scientists do?

    I raised my bet to 100 to 1 that you will not answer this question as you did answer none of the previous ones.

    The overwhelming majority of the scientific community cannot take simple questions. That’s why those scientists who split from the IPCC after seeing how their findings were grossly misrepresented and turned up side down had to compare the IPCC and its actions with actions and essence Hitler’s regime. Neo-Nazis and skin heads represent a lot lesser treat to humanity than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

    EDIT: I am forgettting again that you don't know who is Ernest Hemingway. He is.... well... it does not matter....
     
  3. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you implied that somebody was guilty of murder because they didn't take action against an extreme weather event. I didn't name anyone murders, I just pointed out that calling people murderers for weather events is silly. People didn't go out and plan the weather event, nor could they have known for sure how extreme it was going to be or if it would even hit.

    And you only discredit yourself by saying things like 'scientists do not value human life'. You poor deluded soul.

    What are you even trying to say here? You just admitted that Russia/Western Europe is only 1/6 of the LAND. This is exactly my point and why your link was irrelevant. We are discussing GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

    And yes of course scientists look at all those places when looking at global temperature. That and much, much more. This is exactly what you aren't doing.

    Which one? You seem terribly confused about these subjects.

    ROFL! I don't even need to say anything here. You just owned yourself hard enough.
     
  4. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :laughing: I find your posts barely coherent and pointless, have you even asked an intelligent question as yet?
     
  6. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wouldn't help, he doesn't understand what he reads.
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I asked simple questions. Questions do not imply anything. I bet $10 against $1 that you will not answer them. You did not answer. Instead you made up implications.

    In return I raised my bet to $100 against $1 that you will not answer my questions again.
    You have not attempted yet.
    You continue to make implications of implications of questions.

    My position is crystal clear. If people are warned there is a greater chance that they will put some money aside to buy an extra warm cloth and extra fuel and etc. If they pay taxes for government services, agencies and intergovernmental panels they expect full preparedness of such services and agencies if the latter have knowledge of imminent extremes.

    As well your position is evident and clear, it is, in my view, no different from the position of murders and scientists who think that such services, agencies and intergovernmental panels have no obligations and people should not be as stupid as they are and people should know that global warming is real and it means extreme colds in places which usually are warm.

    I don’t say things I make them self-evident, simple and crystal clear for anyone who has basic honesty and decency.

    I am raising my bet to $380 :$1 that you will not answer the simplest questions. This is all cash I have in my valet.



    In most languages questions are recognized by “?” mark. In many languages ? mark is in the end of the sentence, in some languages it is in the beginning and in some in both the beginning and the end. In English it is in the end.


    For instance when you read “I understand that climate experts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change informed governments of Europe about the effects of AGW expected by them? “, it means 2 things the first one is that I am asking a question and the second one is that it is made in a form which does not fit primitive English taught in the 4th grade.

    Since mentality of believers in warming is on the level of a 4th grader, I will give an example how the same question would be typed by a 4th grader:

    I ask, - Did climate experts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change inform governments of Europe about the effects of AGW expected by them?
    You answer either “Yes, they did” or “No they did not”.

    I bet you will no be able to do, but give it a shot, there are 8 or so sentences ending with question marks in my posts. Prove me wrong and show that your comprehension and abilities may reach the level of Ellochka the cannibal.


    So far nobody has been betting on you and your overwhelming majority of the scientific community. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community is not worth a penny for anybody who has earned it on his own. Suck up to the material world.
     
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And what do you want me to do about it? I cannot implant even a single brain cell in the bone of your head. I feel sorry for you, but I can’t help.
    Yes.
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    People will not and cannot respond to those they have either put on "ignore" or who simply have given up reading because the posts do not make sense

    Instead of trying to impress us with things from obscure literary references try impressing people with

    A) logical arguments
    b) well researched articles
    c) clearly stated facts and opinions
     
  10. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    you just did.
    what difference does it make if you don't bother reading my posts anyway?

    Otherwise you would know that I had told you that I do not do
    A) logical arguments
    b) well researched articles
    c) ... opinions

    All I have done is d)- I asked a few simple quiestions.

    Why would I need any more efforts when it has been enough to demonstrate to the general public that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community represents more danger than skinheads and Neo Nazis, who see and represent themselves as saviours of humanity?
     
  11. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh great, another lying denialist.

    You said: I understand that climate experts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change informed governments of Europe adout the effects of AGW expected by them? And the governments did not take any measures to meet and follow recomendations of experts and at least inform the public ahead of time? No extra warning, no extra shelters, nothing?
    Who are the murderers here?


    Of course you implied there are murderers, you didn't leave any other option in your loaded questions. Next time you should say: Who are the murderers here, if any?

    Come off it, you asked a bunch of loaded questions that aren't even relevant to the thread. Who would you have put in jail for the extreme weather anyway? Do you really think that is a practical solution? Don't you think countries will learn from their inaction as has been done throughout history?

    What is your point? Do you seriously expect governments to supply EVERYBODY with the means to survive any POTENTIAL future weather event? Have you thought about this AT ALL? It's not about me thinking they 'have no obligations', of course they do, but what you are suggesting is just ridiculous at this point in time.


    No, you explicitly asked about a single question when you had asked about 10 already. Of course I'm going to ask you which one..,,And LOL if it was the question in that same post. As I pointed out, you refuted your own point with that question, but this you conveniently ignored responding to in your last post. Again I took this as tacit admission of having no idea what you are talking about :laughing:

    Yep, we got a genius here folks.
     
  12. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    question # 1.

    Did climate experts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change inform governments of Europe about the effects of AGW expected by them?

    Re: http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...32068-european-cold-spell-kills-hundreds.html

    Compare:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

    It has proven to be loaded by nailing the overwhelming majority of the scientific community again and again.

    I have no further questions. I don't think any honest and decent person does. Undecent and dishonest will go in circles endlessly and never answer a simple question.

    I rest my case.
     
  13. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-1.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-2.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3-2.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3-3.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3-4.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3-5.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-3-3-6.html

    From page 11.3.3.4:
    "In northern Europe and in central Europe in winter, where time mean precipitation is simulated to increase, high extremes of precipitation are very likely to increase in magnitude and frequency."

    In other words: expect a lot of snow.
     
  14. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...and who believes the corrupt IPCC?
     
  15. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Pretty much everybody except the brainwashed, politically motivated, scientifically ignorant dupes of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

    That 'everybody' "who believes the IPCC" includes almost all of the scientists on this planet.

    I know that the really, really brainwashed AGW denier cultists are mentally incapable of accepting any evidence that would disturb their fantasies and myths but for those debaters still capable of understanding something called 'evidence', here's the evidence for my last statement. And let's not get any idiotic objections from you denier cultists that Wiki is "corrupt" too. All of the statements by scientific organizations are linked and referenced so they can be verified. These statements are quite real.

    Scientific opinion on climate change
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (excerpts)

    Statements by organizations

    Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

    * 2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[16] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[17]

    * 2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action,[18] and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    * 2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[19] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    * 2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[20] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.

    * 2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[21] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

    InterAcademy Council

    As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[22][23] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

    Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[24] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[25]​

    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

    In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[27]

    As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.​

    Network of African Science Academies

    In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:

    A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[28]

    The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.


    Royal Society of New Zealand

    Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in 2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":

    The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[29]

    National Research Council (US)

    In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[35] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

    The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[35]​


    General science

    Many science organizations have issued statements supporting the IPCC or pointing out the dangers of avoiding action on climate change.

    * American Association for the Advancement of Science As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

    The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[36]​




    ***
     
    ryanm34 and (deleted member) like this.
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Since global climate changes regardless of Man's intervention, why not improve our knowledge of structures to better prepare for those expected climate changes regardless of the actual climate changes?

    Would learning how to extract resources from active volcanoes or live in habitats on the ocean floors be such a bad thing, regardless of climate changes?
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Who believes anonymous conspiracy theory nut job blog sites?
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No, neither would be a BAD thing - just a bloody sight more difficult than dealing with anthropogenic Co2 production
     
  19. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sieg Heil!

    So what is difference between a neo Nazi and a person who calls himself ‘the overwhelming majority of the scientific community'?

    Like it is impossible to tell one neo-Nazi from another it is impossible to tell one overwhelming majority of the scientific community from another one.

    Fascism is a lie told by bullies, - E. Hemingway.
    AGW is a lie told by bullies, I hope any decent person can see that.
     
  20. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63


    I asked 3 simple questions a while ago. The questions were about particular happenings in All of Europe, Russia, Turkey, parts of China and Japan. I referred to Nobel Prize winner Ernest Hemingway in order to clarify the nature of the questions and my position, which were in line with the position of the old fighter with fascism.

    Warmers replied to me with 6 posts. None of the posts did attempt to answer the simplest questions, but Warmers went into all kinds of insinuations, personal attacks, deflections and attempts to pervert my view and defend the Nazi’s view on the death toll. They have been trying to bully me. As Hemingway noticed fascism is a lie told by bullies.

    I think that any decent man can see that direct and honest answer to the questions would live no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community represent more danger than skinheads and neo Nazis. The fierce attempt of Neo Nazis to escape from these questions is an extra proof that the answer exposes their true nature, true intentions and motivations. I think they themselves realized that. As Hemingway noticed “There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the time comes.”

    Now, when I said that I had enough you come up with… what ? an answer?

    Please confirm that I understand you correctly, that your answer is, -

    1.Yes, they did,
    2.here are links proving that they did,
    3.and here is my additional explanations/clarifications.

    Upon your confirmation that I understand your post correctly, I may choose to stay and continue exposing the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and you to yourself and to the general public, to any carpenter or electrician or a rocket designer in a simple and clear way, so that everyone can see that AGW is a lie told by bullies, old trivial fascism. When I was 16 Hemingway was one of my favorite authors. I feel like paying tribute to him.
     
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Prime example of outright rejection of data

    BTW thanks for enacting Godwin's law -

     
  22. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    I always give consideration to data. And so I did.

    According to wiki and you, nobody and no group has, expresses, promotes and enacts Hitler’s and Nazi’s ideologies and views. You can bully other comrades of yours with your logic. I don’t do logic. I do facts. The fact is that according to wiki and you, nobody has, expresses, promotes and enacts Hitler’s and Nazi’s ideologies and views. Any honest person can make his own logical conclusion from the fact stated by me. I don’t bully anyone into my logic.




    I have listed 11 arguments of warmers. I’ve trying to see if I can bring the warmers ot the level of Ellochka the cannibal. I am still looking for one warmer who’d show to be equal in intelligence to a member of MumboJumbo tribe.

    " http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

    CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
    ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

    William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
    Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
    Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
    1. You're being vulgar.
    2. Ho-ho (expresses irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and satisfaction, according to the circumstances).
    3. Great!
    4. Dismal (applied to everything-for example: "dismal Pete has arrived", "dismal weather", or a "dismal cat").
    5. Gloom.
    6. Ghastly (for example: when meeting a close female acquaintance, "a ghastly meeting").
    7. Kid (applied to all male acquaintances, regardless of age or social position).
    8. Don't tell me how to live!
    9. Like a babe ("I whacked him like a babe" when playing cards, or "I brought him down like a babe," evidently when talking to a legal tenant).
    10.Ter-r-rific!
    11. Fat and good-looking (used to describe both animate and
    inanimate objects).
    12. Let's go by horse-cab (said to her husband).
    13. Let's go by taxi (said to male acquaintances).
    14. You're all white at the back! (joke).
    15. Just imagine!
    16. Ula (added to a name to denote affection-for example: Mishula, Zinula).
    17. Oho! (irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and
    satisfaction)." The extraordinary small number of words remaining were used as connecting links between Ellochka and department-store assistants.".



    When Ellochka the cannibal managed easily and fluently on thirty, all warmists' bullying arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen

    1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
    2. You should get some education.
    3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
    4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.
    5. read this:
    somethingImyslefcannotunderstandbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
    6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
    7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
    8. …. Not too many more are there
    …. [ I am working on it]
    13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
    14. I did not say that
    15. You have not proven anything.




    I tried to make it easy for you and other evolutionists.

    Instead of typing all the lines you could just type, - 3.


    You are not interested to know why “so many scientists in so many countries throughout the world have stated they believe AGW”. Not at all. The truth is - not so many scientists in not so many countries throughout the world have stated they believe AGW, but a very few did. Only the overwhelming majority of the scientific community did. But you are not interested in any truth.
     
  23. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOLOLOLOLOL....so...you may choose to continue to grace us with your illuminating presence, eh....here's a hint....nobody cares.....your ignorant clueless posts are content free, off-topic and totally meaningless to the debate....feel free to get lost - (if I'm understanding your threat correctly)....'cause, honestly, flat out, nobody cares about your silly drivel or whether you stay or go....since you add nothing of any substance, it can't possibly make any difference....
     
  24. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ironically, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked you...And yes, your posts are the perfect example of a loaded question.
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why should we really care if Man is causing any global climate change, if climate change is normal and natural for our Earth?

    In my opinion, we should be better off striving for more perfect knowledge of those arts and sciences which can enable us to create habitable environments, any where on Earth.
     

Share This Page