Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What exactly is the assumption or definition of fact here?
We are in the age of information.
There must be a distinction between fact and perception.
Although perceptions are always true, facts are not.
Perceptions will concern the individual only, therefore are always true to the individual. They have origin in the individual's past, they proceed into the individual's future.
That's the reason for which we have psychiatric wards. Because it is possible that an individual will be convinced to the extreme that his perception is the same as fact, willing to prove by force that no other fact is supportive of no other perception.
Facts are enterprises, often presented first in a blueprint or planned possibility, and then continued and established upon the verification of benefits for necessarily inclusive and including perspectives, or otherwise discontinued at their blueprint stage, upon the verification that there are no benefits for necessarily inclusive and including perspectives.
Empirical data is what constitutes of perception, always true to the individual by the influence of his, her or their imagination.
Empirical data cannot establish facts, but facts can only be initiated through empirical data.
People have different empirical experiences, which explains why people have different empirical preferences and is the reason why no person should be offended by an opinion or by an honest expression of their perception.
A fact, however, is when after those perceptions have been captured into descriptions to be expressed and opinionated they may or may not proceed into enterprises through collaboration or decline of other individuals with their own and unique perceptions and preferences so their experiences may be improved or guarded.
LOL facts are ALWAYS true. Interpretation of facts can of course lead to trouble, but that doesn't change the truth. Facts are facts.
How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?
I don't do feelings. I do facts
The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean HannityI don't do feelings. I do facts
The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?
Cooks study went like this:
..a paper is published on the three blind mice...
It has key words in the paper ..
A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..
And presto the author supports man made climate change..
Do you see now how The study was done?
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
LOL facts are ALWAYS true. Interpretation of facts can of course lead to trouble, but that doesn't change the truth. Facts are facts.
How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?
I don't do feelings. I do facts
The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.
Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.
It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean HannityLMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?
Cooks study went like this:
..a paper is published on the three blind mice...
It has key words in the paper ..
A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..
And presto the author supports man made climate change..
Do you see now how The study was done?
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?
I don't do feelings. I do facts
The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.
Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.
What they don't have air conditioners in Arizona? No heaters in Alaska? Denmark didn't reclaim the ocean? No snow plows in buffalo New York? No island building in The China sea?
Yes Virginia we have adapted to climate change.
It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean HannitySee, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?
Cooks study went like this:
..a paper is published on the three blind mice...
It has key words in the paper ..
A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..
And presto the author supports man made climate change..
Do you see now how The study was done?
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean Hannity
Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?
Cooks study went like this:
..a paper is published on the three blind mice...
It has key words in the paper ..
A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..
And presto the author supports man made climate change..
Do you see now how The study was done?
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
I don't do feelings. I do facts
The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.
Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.
What they don't have air conditioners in Arizona? No heaters in Alaska? Denmark didn't reclaim the ocean? No snow plows in buffalo New York? No island building in The China sea?
Yes Virginia we have adapted to climate change.
It's not just about heat. It's about sea water leaching farmland in Bangladesh, it's about apex predators dying because of destruction of habitat, and conditions and pestilence spreading as a result. It's about sea level rise and proliferation of mosquitoes in certain cities that were previously immune to such pests because of their altitude, and the resultant spreading of disease.
Again, the subject is WAYYYYY too complicated for you, so you attempt to boil it down to a joke to make yourself feel more significant than you are. It's okay to simply say you don't understand something.
Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?
Cooks study went like this:
..a paper is published on the three blind mice...
It has key words in the paper ..
A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..
And presto the author supports man made climate change..
Do you see now how The study was done?
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
Wait.
You think fossils are bones, don't you?
LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.
Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.
And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE
Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.
And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.
Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.
What they don't have air conditioners in Arizona? No heaters in Alaska? Denmark didn't reclaim the ocean? No snow plows in buffalo New York? No island building in The China sea?
Yes Virginia we have adapted to climate change.
It's not just about heat. It's about sea water leaching farmland in Bangladesh, it's about apex predators dying because of destruction of habitat, and conditions and pestilence spreading as a result. It's about sea level rise and proliferation of mosquitoes in certain cities that were previously immune to such pests because of their altitude, and the resultant spreading of disease.
Again, the subject is WAYYYYY too complicated for you, so you attempt to boil it down to a joke to make yourself feel more significant than you are. It's okay to simply say you don't understand something.
To complicated for me ? That's the understament of the year...
So we never had flooding before? We never had erosion? We never had islands sinking? Never had Forrest fires? Never had prairie fires that engulfed entire states?
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
Wait.
You think fossils are bones, don't you?
LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.
Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..
Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
Wait.
You think fossils are bones, don't you?
LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.
Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..
In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?
My politics are values-based. Namely my values. For example, my values tell me that every child should have an equal chance to succeed, regardless of their parents. Any law or program that gets succeeds in getting us closer to that goal I'll support. Any that fail should be terminated.In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?
My analogy was perfect of how cook got the 97 percent number that your ilk loves to parrot..
He didn't poll the scientist, he went through published papers with zeal, looking for the key words and most he just looked at the abstracts.
Don't throw out the 97 percent number because it has been clearly debunked.
Then if you want to go back to the standard AGW talking point of scientist signed of that AGW was real, all they are doing is signing off on the report by the NOAA..
Some of The scientist includes...wait for it....
Society of Nematologists
In case you don't know what nematologist is,, it's the study of worms
So you going to tell me the study of worm fossils equates to man made climate change?
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
Wait.
You think fossils are bones, don't you?
LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.
Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..
Out of my league? I gave you facts Cooks 97 percent number was bogus and clearly debunked..
All you gave me were your "feelings" your "belief" of the AGW cult...
Look at the thread title it's obvious you vote your "feelings" regardless of facts.
Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.
OK, we get it: You are a True Believer. Congratulations.
Climate change touches every aspect of life. How WOULDN'T worms and their fossils have something to do with climate change?
You're simplifying an immensely complicated subject and distilling it down to a soundbite you pretend to understand. That's beyond absurd, and it explains why a serious conversation with you doesn't seem to be possible.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
Wait.
You think fossils are bones, don't you?
LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.
Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..
Out of my league? I gave you facts Cooks 97 percent number was bogus and clearly debunked..
All you gave me were your "feelings" your "belief" of the AGW cult...
Look at the thread title it's obvious you vote your "feelings" regardless of facts.
No, it was not "clearly debunked", it was "clarified" by the authors. You're choosing to read "debunked" because you have an emotional reaction to anyone who mentions climate change and attributes human activity as a cause.
Worms have fossils?
Please seriously tell me you don't think that.
Wait.
You think fossils are bones, don't you?
LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.
Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..
Out of my league? I gave you facts Cooks 97 percent number was bogus and clearly debunked..
All you gave me were your "feelings" your "belief" of the AGW cult...
Look at the thread title it's obvious you vote your "feelings" regardless of facts.
No, it was not "clearly debunked", it was "clarified" by the authors. You're choosing to read "debunked" because you have an emotional reaction to anyone who mentions climate change and attributes human activity as a cause.
Clarified by its authors, What the heck are you talking about have a link?
