Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdnativeson
Participantlindismith is this what you are referring to:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Censorship.htmParticipantwikipedia….I really don’t consider that a valid source. If you have to ask why…
A scientific absolute it’s (global warming due to humans) not, a theory, yes, that is about it. Climate Change and Global Warming (in the inconvenient truth context) are not synonymous terms. You ask for specifics but then turn around and say you have to provide nothing.
What your doctor has at his disposal would be the results of long term studies under tightly monitored and controlled conditions. Global warming (in the context it’s being presented in) cannot provide any type of long term absolute result with the brief and incomplete data it’s based upon.
ParticipantI never said there was a specific study based upon an exactitude of studies supporting both sides, I don’t think I even implied it. Suppose there are 10,000 articles and publications questioning and/or denying it (with the premise that it is a solely man-made phenomenom). maybe there are 15,000 saying it is scientific fact (based upon those premises). Because it’s adherents are more prolific writers means nothing in terms of validity.
I agree with the RS’s first statement, as I read the rest of it I see it in the context that it is meant to have, about continental drift and plate tectonics, it doesn’t address anything to the quotes supplied by ucodegen “the perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged”. Still, I can see how RS’s statement applies to both sides of the climate change argument.
With all due respect, you (lindismith) don’t supply anything that provides a truly valid argument. Again, you use the label denialists, as I said, dissenting opinions do not necessarily warrant that label. By using it you are closing the door on any type of objectivity that is supposed to be a basis for science.
Yes, Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, who knows why? I would find it unlikely he had an epiphany and has suddenly, unquestioningly embraced the “inconvenient truth” global warming rhetoric. IMHO, it’s because he is trying to find something to give him a modicum of poltical revelence. It won’t.
Now, tell me something more about the science behind our recent ice-age…….
Participantucodegen, excellent post, makes my recent one both redundant
and insufficient.ParticipantThats a rather myopic view PC. Rapture? How is that pertinent CONCHO?
Participantph, as a collective, they have no need.
ParticipantActually yes, there are. Go and google away on it. I would recommend that you use a least three other search engines.
As with everyone, google has it’s own agendas and often the results are skewed. By the way, dissenting opinion isn’t necessarily denialist.this is a good introduction;
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10In the mid 70’s it was another ice age… now it’s global warming.
dz, lol.
Participantdz, lol. I would like you to go back only…… 6 years
(I’m a benevolent kinda guy), the date range of March 1st through April 15th. Please tell me in detail all of the appointments you had (everywhere outside of your home you were “present” at) and actually attended. Then, tell me who was present at said appointments, both those whom you spoke to and those that were merely present, provide me the names of those who saw you. Tell me the content of your interactions with both groups. Tell me who left when, who said what etc.ParticipantIf you mean stopping environmental pollution then you have a point. As far as global warming goes…. well you’ve bought into another trend. But it’s a trend that is popular with left leaning individuals and they are the best at stifling their critics.
example:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.htmlThe are just as many articles debunking the “inconvient truth” mentality as those that propagate it. What is “convenient” is how the data was cherry-picked. If you can’t/won’t both investigate and question the information that you are being fed by the Global Warming crowd, then you are entitled to your opinion, just qualify it with ” in my uneducated” opinion.
You want lower health care? Reign in the Trial Lawyers lobby first. Then move onto other “reforms”
Get out of Iraq right away? lol, I won’t revisit that at this time.
Support and encourage alternative energy? Yes, we should, however, as far as alternatives that can be implemented relatively quickly, some of the main obstructionists are the environmentalists.
Cut military spending? Very short-sighted opinion, in brief it will certainly not improve the quality of life for those in our country, certainly not when there are so many willing to use force in the world. Maybe you think that if
“we” go away there will be peace throughout the world….LOLback to work now.
Participantjg, why do you waste your time with TB? It’s a waste of time arguing or debating someone like that. It’ll pull you down to that level – and temporarily has, based on your second grade comment. TB’s words show what type of person he/she is and the limits of TB’s world are defined by his/her attitude in said comments.
Participantdz, look beyond articles that validate your prejudices…
ParticipantPeople see and hear only what they want all too often.
go here;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/then here;
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=241744137262638CIA motivation? Just consider these;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005686http://www.rcpblog.com/articles/2006/08/cia_versus_white_house.html
Wells is trying to defend his client as is his job. At this point he is going to come up with anything he can, which is what he is doing. From what I’ve read his claims are still based on heresay, Truth be damned. But he is in a bad position as the only thing Fitzgerald can hold on to is the possible conviction of Libby
This is typical partisan politics. And, as usual, the majority of those here follow right along.
Participantthanks for the link, it answered some other questions I had.
I always paid on time and never gave it much of a second thought.Participantgood catch NC Jim, I would bet it’s up also. I’ve heard that the lender would make the tax payments to protect their position. How soon does the lender hit the borrower with that? Is it immediately tacked onto their monthly payment? Added to the principal?
-
AuthorPosts
