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.
Well, then there's that hockey stick model that Al Gore pushed, and the Climategate via the University of East Anglia, then I can jump to the laughable peer-review process instituted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarily rejected studies that conflicted with global warming. Then there was the Himalayan Glaciers incident.
Yes, and Liberals call US uneducated?
If the overalll overwhelming consensus among scientists, including an overwhelming consensus among those not shown to be unethical or incompetent,
if that consensus is that the planet is warming,
how would it be that anecdotal incidents of unethical or incompetent actions in the scientific community serve to refute that consensus?
Does rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church refute all principles of Christianity?
So how did religion come into the discussion? The planet is warming, but humans aren't causing the warming. It is part of an ancient cycle, there have been multiple warming periods over the past 800,000 years. And if you have to change the data, and manipulate models, lie about it to the masses, and intimidate or preclude scientists who come to different conclusions about a theory, then it is a fraud. I hate to break it to you.
Do you believe that a scientific study by 'liberal' scientists can in fact be of genuine scientific value, and can be objective despite the personal leanings of the scientists,
and therefore any attempt to summarily impugn or reject any study using those leanings is a fallacious argument?
Academic hero-worshiping usually derives from an intellectually destitute background wherein the individual is taught not to question those of superior status.
Your response does not include a simple yes or no answer to the question I posed,
which of course can be translated into a 'yes', which you cannot bear to utter out loud.
There is some consensus in the fact that the planet is warming yes but that is essentially where it begins to drop off. There is less in why and even less in what that means and less even still on whether or not it is going to be the disastrous and planet killing impact that the liberals are demanding.Well, then there's that hockey stick model that Al Gore pushed, and the Climategate via the University of East Anglia, then I can jump to the laughable peer-review process instituted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarily rejected studies that conflicted with global warming. Then there was the Himalayan Glaciers incident.
Yes, and Liberals call US uneducated?
If the overalll overwhelming consensus among scientists, including an overwhelming consensus among those not shown to be unethical or incompetent,
if that consensus is that the planet is warming,
how would it be that anecdotal incidents of unethical or incompetent actions in the scientific community serve to refute that consensus?
Does rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church refute all principles of Christianity?
Add to the list New Zealand professor of clinical neurology Alan Barber:
Yup sure sounds like a quack to me.
Leading research into brain disorders | Stuff.co.nz
On the Auckland University study.
The author (Dr. P. Alan Barber) openly admits that the study didn't account for tobacco use how long and how much the young stroke patients had been smoking and how big a role that might have played in stroke risk. The "study" also relied on urine samples, but traces of THC can be found in the urine for at least a whole month after consumption of cannabis.
According to the US National Stroke Association, "Smoking tobacco (at least)doubles the risk for stroke when compared to a non-smoker. It reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing the heart to work harder and allowing blood clots to form more easily."
"Prohibitionists are scraping the bottom of the barrel by claiming that cannabis doubles the risk of stroke, when this result has already been linked to tobacco use. There is nothing scientific about this study and it should be discredited by all rational individuals."
It is so ironic to read these "Conservatives" constantly denigrating scientists as the post on their computer over the internet.
As far as PC's constant railing at the people that have spent their lives becoming expert in a given field, one can see the envy of someone that has succeeded where that person has failed.
And prove your lies about the scientists that have been gathering evidence for the last century on the warming.
And prove your lies about the scientists that have been gathering evidence for the last century on the warming.
less than 40 years ago the very same "scientists" were screaming that the planet is cooling
Bonus: If you really want to blow their minds, point out that, in the 70s, Newsweek ran a cover story on predictions of global cooling. That's right -- cooling! These same scientists who are now saying warming used to be saying cooling! Which also is absurd on its face, since we're talking about a Newsweek cover story and a handful of scientists, not the overwhelming judgment of every major scientific body on the planet and decades of peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals worldwide, but no one can deny that the Newsweek cover story existed. You're practically telling the truth!
Bill Maher as a source of credibility is hilarious
an article ... not peer reviewed
Bill Maher as a source of credibility is hilarious
No Bill Mahr predicting and clowning your over used talking point is even funnier. He actually wrote that months ago. Get some new lines
Bill Maher as a source of credibility is hilarious
No Bill Mahr predicting and clowning your over used talking point is even funnier. He actually wrote that months ago. Get some new lines
Bill Maher is an idiot and I couldn't care less about his writings.
nice try, though
an article ... not peer reviewed
it is not an "article" - it was the same hysteria about cooling as it is now about warming.
I was being brainwashed by that on every level starting from high school
an article ... not peer reviewed
it is not an "article" - it was the same hysteria about cooling as it is now about warming.
I was being brainwashed by that on every level starting from high school
Seriously? That's how you refute it was an article by saying its hysteria.
Me: This is a tree
Vox: That's not a tree....Its stupid
No Bill Mahr predicting and clowning your over used talking point is even funnier. He actually wrote that months ago. Get some new lines
Bill Maher is an idiot and I couldn't care less about his writings.
nice try, though
Just know that "that idiot" predicted your moves before you made them. lol
And prove your lies about the scientists that have been gathering evidence for the last century on the warming.
less than 40 years ago the very same "scientists" were screaming that the planet is cooling
No they weren't...That article was from a few scientists and not....I repeat NOT peer reviewed.
So it's like claiming DNA doesn't hold any information because some guy said so and ignoring the Agreed upon evidence that's been reviewed. Then seriously comparing research to a story.
Bill Maher: How to Become a Global Warming Denier - BLOGGA PLEASE
Now how sad is your talking point when Bill Maher predicted it before you did it
Bonus: If you really want to blow their minds, point out that, in the 70s, Newsweek ran a cover story on predictions of global cooling. That's right -- cooling! These same scientists who are now saying warming used to be saying cooling! Which also is absurd on its face, since we're talking about a Newsweek cover story and a handful of scientists, not the overwhelming judgment of every major scientific body on the planet and decades of peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals worldwide, but no one can deny that the Newsweek cover story existed. You're practically telling the truth!
Too bad, you actually sounded like you practiced that several times in the mirror
And prove your lies about the scientists that have been gathering evidence for the last century on the warming.
less than 40 years ago the very same "scientists" were screaming that the planet is cooling
No they weren't...That article was from a few scientists and not....I repeat NOT peer reviewed.
So it's like claiming DNA doesn't hold any information because some guy said so and ignoring the Agreed upon evidence that's been reviewed. Then seriously comparing research to a story.
Bill Maher: How to Become a Global Warming Denier - BLOGGA PLEASE
Now how sad is your talking point when Bill Maher predicted it before you did it
Bonus: If you really want to blow their minds, point out that, in the 70s, Newsweek ran a cover story on predictions of global cooling. That's right -- cooling! These same scientists who are now saying warming used to be saying cooling! Which also is absurd on its face, since we're talking about a Newsweek cover story and a handful of scientists, not the overwhelming judgment of every major scientific body on the planet and decades of peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals worldwide, but no one can deny that the Newsweek cover story existed. You're practically telling the truth!
Too bad, you actually sounded like you practiced that several times in the mirror
The following selection of links is from Newsbusters, and was posted in the comments section: (5/27/13 this list was posted on Newsbusters by PopTech.)
1970 Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 New Ice Age Coming Its Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 2 Scientists Think Little Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
Sure you can predict Bill. The difference is you SAY you can and he just DID it lol
I know you don't feel like looking up the article. That's why you'll stay wrong you have no intellectual curiosity. Someone told you the talking point and by golly its so easy to remember why even try to find out if what I'm being told is true. lol
