Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: Another one for the "man made" global warming suckers

  1. #1
    never_fast_enuf
    Wake up people...you have been scammed and that just can't feel good at all.
    SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966

  2. #2
    Schiada76
    No, only the idiot liberal hysterics have been scammed. Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria.
    Now, can they just get back to their global cooling hysteria.:idea:
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Someone call the Algore, he's honest and will save us all!

  3. #3
    ULTRA26 # 1
    Wake up people...you have been scammed and that just can't feel good at all.
    SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966
    DAILYTECH
    SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
    Michael Asher
    August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
    It would be helpful to all if you pointed out all of the facts, not just the one that support your agenda.
    No, only the idiot liberal hysterics have been scammed. Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria.
    Now, can they just get back to their global cooling hysteria.:idea:
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Someone call the Algore, he's honest and will save us all!
    Schiada,
    You are correct in your statement that "Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria". Anyone with a whole brain is aware that there is still a great deal to learn about this issue.

  4. #4
    jh4rt
    I don't usually post in this forum. But, I'm going to make an exception and give you a (hopefully) thought provoking comment:
    What kind of arrogance must "man" have to honestly purport that in his measly (approximately) 1 million years of existence on earth, he has had the capacity to change the course of a (so far approximately) 3.4 BILLION year cycle? If you can answer that question, maybe you should ponder on this one: What kind of JACK-ASS would believe that man's activity in the last 200 years could considerably alter the outcome of a 3.4 BILLION year cycle?
    I'm all for personal conservation. I pick up other peoples' trash when i'm on a beach at Lake Mead. I like my environment to be nice for ME! I don't expect others to behave this way; they won't. Anyone who tries to force others to do so through regulation is a thief. If you want your environment to be better and cleaner, there are lots of countries/places in the world where "civilization" hasn't encroached. Move there!
    Meanwhile, the "issue" of anthropogenic global warming is strictly a political one. Religion doesn't work anymore, so the politicos have created a new "god" called the environment. Because it doesn't require the same amount of "blind faith" as the old gods, it is much easier to justify the guilt/fear factor. It's for the children after all.....
    Well, now I'm in it, right? Position stated.
    peace out... and umm... Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!

  5. #5
    ULTRA26 # 1
    I don't usually post in this forum. But, I'm going to make an exception and give you a (hopefully) thought provoking comment:
    What kind of arrogance must "man" have to honestly purport that in his measly (approximately) 1 million years of existence on earth, he has had the capacity to change the course of a (so far approximately) 3.4 BILLION year cycle? If you can answer that question, maybe you should ponder on this one: What kind of JACK-ASS would believe that man's activity in the last 200 years could considerably alter the outcome of a 3.4 BILLION year cycle?
    I'm all for personal conservation. I pick up other peoples' trash when i'm on a beach at Lake Mead. I like my environment to be nice for ME! I don't expect others to behave this way; they won't. Anyone who tries to force others to do so through regulation is a thief. If you want your environment to be better and cleaner, there are lots of countries/places in the world where "civilization" hasn't encroached. Move there!
    Meanwhile, the "issue" of anthropogenic global warming is strictly a political one. Religion doesn't work anymore, so the politicos have created a new "god" called the environment. Because it doesn't require the same amount of "blind faith" as the old gods, it is much easier to justify the guilt/fear factor. It's for the children after all.....
    Well, now I'm in it, right? Position stated.
    peace out... and umm... Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!
    Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?

  6. #6
    bigq
    Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
    and what percentage would that be as opposed to the natural occurences of the gasses?

  7. #7
    jh4rt
    Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
    Define environment. Who's is it? Who decides who owns it? Define God. You get the point?
    Does dumping pollution in a stream affect/effect the life in that stream? You F*&^Ckin bet! And anyone who does it should be jailed/strung-up/killed equivalent to the damage they do. It's called reactionary law. It was the rule up until Abe Lincoln created the Interstate Trade Commission; the first regulatory agency and F*d our government for the rest of time.
    Meanwhile, do you really think that the world will be saved by outlawing my 2-stroke Merc?
    I guess the reason I don't post... is that I could speak for hours on this... but I felt compelled for some reason today.
    I will sum it up pretty simply and ask you to ask these questions any time the government is "mandating" or regulating anything:
    "By what standard?"
    "At whose expense?"
    "To what end?"
    peace out for real this time.

  8. #8
    never_fast_enuf
    Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
    Speaking of an agenda...yet another masterful (not) deflection Ultra. Newsflash...pollution does not equate to global climate change. You can't find any sane rational person who advocates blatant pollution. As a boat owner and one who actually enjoys playing in a clean environment, I never ceased to be amazed at those of you who bow to the alter of Algore and your ability to confuse the two topics.

  9. #9
    ULTRA26 # 1
    Speaking of an agenda...yet another masterful (not) deflection Ultra. Newsflash...pollution does not equate to global climate change. You can't find any sane rational person who advocates blatant pollution. As a boat owner and one who actually enjoys playing in a clean environment, I never ceased to be amazed at those of you who bow to the alter of Algore and your ability to confuse the two topics.
    I'm not cunfused. If you stopped a the barrage of bullshit long enough to read what my position is on this issue it might surprize you. But not the masterdebater.
    I'm going boating, have fun

  10. #10
    never_fast_enuf
    There goes that temper again!
    Your position is very clear. It is two fold. One, you don't understand the difference between pollution and the theory of man made global warming and two, you refuse to use your own brain and even an ounce of common sense to stop and question what is behind the myth of man made global warming.
    The problem with you, indeed the problem with all liberals, is you approach a subject such as this with pure emotion...facts be damned.
    BTW, I would already be on the water but I am waiting for our weekend guests to arrive here at the lake house and I had a few hours to kill by busting your balls.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. If You Don't Believe in Global Warming...
    By dirty old man in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 01:01 PM
  2. Not Global Warming Huh???????????
    By Not So Fast in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-01-2007, 08:19 AM
  3. Global warming ????
    By jbone in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-22-2007, 07:06 AM
  4. global warming my ars!
    By victorfb in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-16-2007, 09:38 AM
  5. Before "Global Warming" came "Global Cooling"
    By SmokinLowriderSS in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-01-2005, 09:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •