gftChris Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon? It's a metaphor Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable. He actually answered that question himself in the negative, so I think we can assume it was tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Woodrow asked me who is bothering me about it. The president is one of those people and I think I explained why. Of course Woody is an........ WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hahahah, my bad, he answered it literally the next line, lol. Yep yep yep, my bad. I know it is a metaphor, but it is a dumb one. It should be a shovel full or something. Your first dig in wouldn't be a tablespoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle. Oh my god! So much content! I can't handle it! I would never be able to post something that on topic and well thought out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them? Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama. But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt. WSS Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully. Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory. Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate. It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers. Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests... stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it. Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet from nonsense...... ******************************* UN climate talks fall apart as 132 countries storm out | The Daily Caller dailycaller.com/.../epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as-132-countries-s... Nov 20, 2013 - Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming. Poor Countries Push Rich Nations To Do More On Climate Change ... www.npr.org › News › World Nov 20, 2013 - Delegates to the U.N. climate change conference in Poland from many of the world's poorer nations are asking wealthier countries to pay ... Climate Change Alarm Is A U.N. Extortion Racket - Investors.com news.investors.com › IBD Editorials Nov 21, 2013 - The global warming scare isn't about saving the planet. It's about transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries and providing jobs ... Rich vs. poor: Divide deepens over who should pay for climate change www.nbcnews.com/.../rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pa... Nov 20, 2013 - Delegates talk during a break in a plenary session at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ... U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the money canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59608 Dec 2, 2013 - U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the money, economy, finance, ... Delegates from developing countries, such as Ecuador's lead ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math. PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math. You are not even including into the countries that basically went from being nearly 3rd world countries 30-40 years ago to industrial powerhouses(india and china for example). Honestly until we find a legit way to replace fossil fuels such as oil in our most used transportation cars/trucks nothing is really going to change. People still need to move from point A to point B, and so does goods/merchandise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully. Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory. Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate. It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers. Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests... stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it. Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet from nonsense...... ******************************* Standard list of google results. I think it's strange that "certain posters...ahem..." continue to disregard the science without even attempting to disagree with its findings in any way, and instead talk about how it's all made up by politicians. I couldn't care less what politicians are saying about it, I'm interested in what the science says, and it says we're going to burn! That was a joke, btw. The science of it has been researched basically endlessly, by people far more qualified to do so than you or I, and conclusions drawn that the vast majority of scientists agree with. I wouldn't doubt for a second that people are trying to manipulate findings for their own personal gain, because that's the nature of people. For example, if you're the head of a large coal company, you might want to deny that there's any problem with burning it - while on the other hand investing in research on clean energy because you want to corner that market first, but not lose income in the mean time. Is it possible that people are using it to scare people in to giving them money? Probably. But I don't care about that, like I say, I'm interested in the science, not the politics, and the science is there to back it up. As to the articles about poor countries cutting down rainforests etc, it's myopic capitalism at its best. The best thing in the short term for that country is to cut down the trees, sell the wood, plan crops/build things to get more money. Are you suggesting that we should follow the lead of the developing countries when it comes to global science, rather than they should follow our lead? What was it you were saying about the minority ruling the majority? You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math. PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha WSS The flipside of developing countries that are becoming more industrialised and modern, therefore emitting more greenhouse gases is that the population growth slows down and, as we've seen in some developed countries, even start to become negative. That being said, it is a very real concern, and not just in terms of emissions. There are all sorts of issues with how to feed everyone, where everyone will live etc. I don't believe that in 100 years cars will be using any kind of fossil fuel for power, and hopefully we'll have some sort of reliable clean energy capable of providing base usage capacity; plus, you'd like to think that by then, we won't be denying any problems, and people will be much more receptive to using things like solar panels and the rest. Yes, I have a joint degree in Maths and CompSci, and a masters in finance. Generally, I allowed a couple of days per exam, which I found was sufficient, because the exam format was highly predictable and the questions formulaic. And yeah, there was no small amount of cramming after a morning exam in time for the afternoon exam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is. But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it. If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Chris, The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage. Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted. Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that shows other causes of warming...and cooling? It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell? If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov grants come from... that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN, and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity. But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Farmers fight cow farts to protect the climate | Environment | DW.DE ... www.dw.de/farmers-fight-cow-farts-to-protect-the.../a-16702813 Mar 27, 2013 - When they belch and fart, they release methane, a powerful ... The UN has called for a tax on cattle emissions in order to reduce the ... HowStuffWorks "Do cows pollute as much as cars?" science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/methane-cow.htm Cow flatulence produces the greenhouse gas methane, which is linked to ... 10 Wacky Forms of Alternative Energy · TreeHugger.com: Using Garlic to Fight Cow Farts ... In 2003, the government of New Zealand proposed a flatulence tax, which ... Proposed Cow "Gas" Tax Angers Farmers - Huffington Post www.huffingtonpost.com/.../proposed-cow-gas-tax-ange_n_148682.htm... Dec 5, 2008 - Many call it a "cow tax" and say the EPA proposed it. .... not stop theircows from farting and belching. the proposed NAIS will hurt us enough if it ... Agricultural emissions research levy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is. But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it. If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over. WSS The cash won't disappear from the economy, it'll just be spread out. It will mean some businesses going bust, for sure, which sucks for them, but it's a capitalist evolution - the most efficient wins. If you find a way to mass produce the LED lightbulbs and still be profitable, then you drive your competition out of business. It's happened with things like butchers, green grocers and the rest. You can see it with places like Walmart that are trying to sell everything they possibly can, to corner every market, and they will because they're big enough that they can make the appropriate economies of scale. It will mean that cash is funnelled into other areas, dependent on what you want to spend your spare dough on - holidays, technology etc. I'm inclined to agree that there are some sensationalists that will tell you that the oceans will boil, the planet will turn to dust - and there'll be people telling us it's God's will as well and that it's the rapture! - but there are effects we're seeing now, like the freak weather everywhere. Massive cold in north america, massive heatwave in Australia (up to almost 130F), it's already happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax ! (so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make poor nations rich) Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks.... And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing... yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth.... that USE CO2 for food.... More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement. Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Up is down, down is up, left is right and right is left, backwards is forewards and... all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$ I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Chris, The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage. Not in any meaningful way. The sun has been getting slightly warmer over the last 150 years, but if anything has been getting cooler over the last 35 years. Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted. Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that shows other causes of warming...and cooling? Anyone can publish a paper - you mean it doesn't get picked up by mainstream news? That's not related. It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell? I agree, we need to stop the deforestation, and attempt to reverse it. Unfortunately, this isn't a money-making policy, and at a time like this, giving money away to other countries is almost a guaranteed vote loser. This upsets me too. If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov grants come from... that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN, and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity. This is an interesting topic, and it's a bit of a hot button thing over here as well. I might start a slightly controversial topic on the matter. In america, cities have rules set by the state. The state has rules set by the country. Why shouldn't the country have rules set by the world? Just basic rules, probably, because there will always be issues that are specific to each area. But to that end, why bother having countries in the first place? But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO ! It contributes, in however small a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 A scientific theory. An important distinction. Who on here has said we need to "stop CO2 from existing"? What proof do you have of this conspiracy to shut down any views conflicting from the vast majority? Also, it is climate change. Cold weather disproves nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax ! Uhhhh... (so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make poor nations rich) Generic politics blaming... Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks.... Uhhhh... And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing... Nope, nobody's saying that. yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth.... that USE CO2 for food.... *sigh* More doesn't mean better. We'll never stop CO2 from existing, it's a naturally occurring substance. We just need to rein in how much of it we're emitting. More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement. Back to your petition? Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Do you even read what's written? You're a developer, I assume you must have some understanding of statistics. Basically, the distribution of temperatures is getting wider - volatility is increasing - while the average temperature rises gradually. Maybe you didn't notice the comment about it being ridiculously hot in Australia at the moment? Or Argentina? It's understandable to connect 'global warming' with 'it must be getting hotter everywhere' but that's just not how it works. Up is down, down is up, left is right and right is left, backwards is forewards and... Uhhhh... all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$ Uhhhh... I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it.... Well it certainly wasn't me. Right, I'm off, finished at work. I'll be back in the morning for round 137 of "the science is real" versus "it's all made up by politicians" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 This is an interesting topic, and it's a bit of a hot button thing over here as well. I might start a slightly controversial topic on the matter. In america, cities have rules set by the state. The state has rules set by the country. Why shouldn't the country have rules set by the world? Just basic rules, probably, because there will always be issues that are specific to each area. But to that end, why bother having countries in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I left for class this morning and it was -7 degrees outside. Clearly MMGW is false! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say. I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather. ... Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now. You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 ... Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now. You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand. Woody get this through your head dude. I've never disputed that man plays a role in "climate change" but there's not shit that can realistically be done about it and thusly I do. Not. Give. A. Fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Why can nothing realistically be done about it? At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 mmgw is a theory that is falling apart. "virtually all scientists" is a falsehood. http://www.oism.org/pproject/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Cal - that petition has already been addressed. Do I need to set up a similar but opposing petition and get it signed by a load of people to convince you otherwise? Right, let's look at this petition then: "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." Says what evidence? OR is it all just assumptions and guesswork? "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Yes, yes there is. I'm not going to go out and find every study on the subject - or just copy and paste a load of meaningless google results - but the evidence is there. On top of the problems with the statements, there's the fact that it's only signed by 40k people - of which only 39 are climatologists. When you consider the sheer number of people that are qualified to the same level as the signatories that haven't signed, it becomes a bit less impressive. There are over 10 million scientists qualified in the fields stated on the petition, so it represents only about 0.4% of people that they are claiming are qualified to comment. To get a more representative view, you should look at all the scientific papers being published on the subject matter and their conclusions on it. Fortunately, someone's already done this for us - lots of people, in fact. The most recent was in 2013, with the following results: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Here's a great write-up on it: (make sure ya read the part, second page, about how the wording changed from one draft to another.) http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-man-made-global-warming-crisis/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Cal - that petition has already been addressed. Do I need to set up a similar but opposing petition and get it signed by a load of people to convince you otherwise? Chris ******************************************************* You are missing the point. I don't have to prove a theory is fact. You do. And it has been proven to be only a theory. The fact that there are opposing views staunchly held by experts, a lot of them, on both sides, means that mmgw is not a truth, not an absolute truth at all, and not any kind of fact. So, why all the dire demands for taxes on all sorts of things and activities, on something that cannot be proven? Ulterior, spread the wealth to poor countries kind of motives, make money for our mmgw businesses we invested in, or started.... Read the entire Forbes article. Then comment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Do we need to have ANOTHER lesson on what a scientific theory is? Also, yes, there are opposing viewpoints. But acting like there are the same amount of qualified experts endorsing each view point is ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 When Chicken Little did her exhaustive thesis and decided the sky was, in fact, falling she did indeed use all scientific data available to her at the time. Was that the lesson you wanted to point out Woodrow? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.