Reply With Quote
I don't think Colbert has ever made me laugh. Hard to believe he's going to take over for Letterman.
Colbert crushes climate deniers
http://www.alternet.org/video/hilari...ter993002&t=11
I don't think Colbert has ever made me laugh. Hard to believe he's going to take over for Letterman.
Hard to believe a comedian is taken as given factual information.
he's funnier and more scientific than WC and all AGW deniers
his "fair and balanced" debate between 3 AGW deniers and 97 "scientists" was tremendous, exposing the typical 1 vs 1 false equivalence debate.
WC has watched the weather channel for years. He knows climate inside and out.
such a stunning combo of pride and stupidity.
Uh Oh........
Scientists In Cover-Up Of ‘Damaging’ Climate View
///snip///
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.
///snip///
http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in...-climate-view/
New global-warming skeptic fears for 'safety'
'Enormous group pressure has become virtually unbearable to me'
http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/new-globa...EJhZbGc3XTO.99
Just the normal rational "global warming" group or is it "climate change". What's the money word today?
You sources are just as valid as boutons alternet and nakedcapitalsim.
Your first link is from a UK oil industry think-tank that was the one pimping poptarts site recently. the other is right up there with infowars as it pertains to credibility.
Nice that you abandoned your plate tectonics stupidity but don't double down with this bull . You lack the ability to think for yourself is glaring. None of those links talk about the science they supposedly support.
Here you go FuzzyBumkins. Don't want you to feel left out. The sky is falling, the sky is falling......Oh, my goodness, Washington D.C. we are doomed.
Can D.C. survive 'unstoppable' ice melt?
///snip///
"The worry to our children is, not only will this continue, but it might accelerate pretty fast," says Boicourt, of the University of Maryland.
"We do have at least a century to prepare," says Ekwurzel, "and in the case of the worst-case scenario, maybe a couple centuries. We should plan on one to four feet of sea-level rise happening over the course of this century, as a conservative estimate." "The worry to our children is, not only will this continue, but it might accelerate pretty fast," says Boicourt, of the University of Maryland.
"We do have at least a century to prepare," says Ekwurzel, "and in the case of the worst-case scenario, maybe a couple centuries. We should plan on one to four feet of sea-level rise happening over the course of this century, as a conservative estimate."
///snip///
http://wtop.com/884/3623052/District...ot-if-but-when
Of course we are speaking of D.C. so if they whole thing went under water tomorrow, no great lost.
But all these "experts" always pick a convenient time for things to occur. I mean how can you dispute something that is going to happen in 100 years.
FuzzyBrain STILL butthurt
Is that what you tell yourself? That I am mad and that is somehow going to invalidate my point? That is pretty delusional.
I have no respect for you. That is different than anger.
Your are as left wing biased as his are to the right wing. Your dissembling to try to turn it on me doesn't change that.
The model is quite simple to understand. Middle school science discusses the capillary effect and high school physics talks about the coefficient of friction. Momentum is a bit more advanced so college level physics.
The glacier is moving into the sea. It is what it is. You don't even argue that. Sorry that climate cycles and glaciers take long periods of time to move.
Here you go Fuzzy. The original source that I found for my post on coverup. I figured you didn't have a subscription so I found another source. But I don't want you to feel neglected.
Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/scienc...cle4091344.ece
The model is quite simple to understand. Middle school science discusses the capillary effect and high school physics talks about the coefficient of friction. Momentum is a bit more advanced so college level physics.
The glacier is moving into the sea. It is what it is. You don't even argue that. Sorry that climate cycles and glaciers take long periods of time to move.
Damn, I'm impressed.
That link doesn't work as it just gives a blurb. The first one worked fine. You haven't figured out how to work the quote function which is sad and you are trying desperately to distractt from the science. Whining because glaciers take centuries to move is not a good argument.
The blurb talks of a claim with no substance behind it. The oil think tank scientists always get upset when they are rejected by the peer review process. They never talk about what they submitted. He doesn't even give a full account of what was said to him. He gives a throwaway phrase and that is it.
In this case, people didn't want to coauthor with him because he was taking money from that think tank. That is their prerogative.
Well I am not very impressed by you. Quite the opposite, magic sky man worshiper.
Gee, I am really hurt. I suppose I will have to just bear the thought that you aren't impressed. Actually, I was trying to be kind, you have a real problem with reading comprehension, but I am not surprised. You seem to have the uncanny ability to be sharply focused on just one side of an argument.
Just as President Obama says, let me be perfectly clear. I don't much give a damn what you think of me.
What other side have you presented? The output of a think tank with vested financial interest?
You have given up on every single substantive argument you have made.
Except when your Medicare claim doesn't get processed or your SS check doesn't arrive.
You old who live off the federal government while simultaneously whining about it disgust me.
Well, I live off of what I paid for and continue to pay for, you young twerp. And what whining.
ahhhhhhhhh. vested financial interest.
Prove to me you paid in more than has been paid out on behalf of Medicare and social security.
Prove to me I haven't!
I feel the same about people who think everyone except themselves should pay higher taxes.
Statistically, there is a greater chance you'll receive more in benefits than you pay in. You might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. You're clearly not very intelligent and likely didn't make much money in your prime.
Yeah, I can tell you are much more intelligent than I am.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
