A Question about Global Warming:

AGW theory is completely based on what-ifs.

I don't think so as much science is used to establish facts to draw upon conclusions. Which is science in itself.

There is a difference between political what-ifs and scientific conclusions.

Her conclusion is based on no concrete evidence other than her fears.
 
☭proletarian☭;1806153 said:
If second hand smoke is a toxin and can be regulated than all toxins can be regulated

Are you retarded? ShS contains toxins. It's not one chemical, genius. And not all toxins are regulated, nor is your idiocy remotely resemble a logical implication of tobacco legislation.


I wasn't retarded last time I checked, but if you keep breathing on me I might become that way. Uncle Sam just SAID the CO2 you're breathing out is poison.
 
AGW theory is completely based on what-ifs.

I don't think so as much science is used to establish facts to draw upon conclusions. Which is science in itself.

There is a difference between political what-ifs and scientific conclusions.

Her conclusion is based on no concrete evidence other than her fears.

It's based on logical progression (do you like the word progressive?) and a knowledge in the way our congresscritters operate.. they exist soley to levy taxes upon the American taxpayer. :eusa_whistle: Hell, most of us learned to connect the dots at around 4 or so..
 
AGW theory is completely based on what-ifs.

I don't think so as much science is used to establish facts to draw upon conclusions. Which is science in itself.

There is a difference between political what-ifs and scientific conclusions.

Her conclusion is based on no concrete evidence other than her fears.

they are saying that 200 years is a large enough sample out of 500 billion to draw conclusions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top