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.
Who cares about NASA? The left can prop up all the propaganda it wants from NASA or anyplace else!!! A the end of the day, nobody gives a rats ass about the science anymore. The public see's it and says, "Meh".
But dont take my word for it............from Pew Research last week................
But the nutters will keep posting up those "science" links!!!
DOMINATION
Who cares about NASA? The left can prop up all the propaganda it wants from NASA or anyplace else!!! A the end of the day, nobody gives a rats ass about the science anymore. The public see's it and says, "Meh".
But dont take my word for it............from Pew Research last week................
But the nutters will keep posting up those "science" links!!!
DOMINATION
PEW says only 6% of scientists are Republican so Republicans say that proves PEW are a bunch of liars.
So what is it?
Besides, Republicans say, "Government can't create jobs". And we saw what they did under Bush. We are finally starting to recover from their disastrous policies and they want to take over the economy again. To what? Finish the job?
how do people deny in the face of so much scientific evidence, climate change, or the earth warming, or even the most likely cause of much -- human-induced change?
Which scientific evidence would that be? Output from models doesn't constitute evidence of anything more than icompetent programming skills. There is not a whit of observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activites of man and the perpetually changing climate.
If you believe, as clearly you do, that there exists this overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that points the finger at man in regard to climate change, how about you post a bit of it.
Faith = religious belief?Faith?
Is NASA a religion?
poor Frank. when will you ever learn? now try to disprove a few things on NASA's Climate Change Web Site Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate models tell me that there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow; how much faith should one have when their models tell you that in 48 years the ice caps will melt and the oceans will turn to gastric juices?
how do people deny in the face of so much scientific evidence, climate change, or the earth warming, or even the most likely cause of much -- human-induced change?
When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?
NASA has a global climate change web site?
What a world, what a world.
Vital Signs of the Planet
damn liberal scientists!
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?
You two could possibly win a Nobel.
1. Show me the one laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes Global warming and turns the oceans acidic.
More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!
Faith = religious belief?
poor Frank. when will you ever learn? now try to disprove a few things on NASA's Climate Change Web Site Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate models tell me that there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow; how much faith should one have when their models tell you that in 48 years the ice caps will melt and the oceans will turn to gastric juices?
Do you deny there is a 50% chance of rain, when models say there is? I doubt the ice caps would melt to the point of oceans turning to gastric juices, because like the acid rain battles of a few decades ago, and the air quality battles of SoCal, those without their heads in the sand will act.
Let us be honest, the models most people speak about predict outcomes if nothing is done to slow down or correct human contributions.
1. Show me the one laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes Global warming and turns the oceans acidic.
More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!
You can't even read or count!
I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"
Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?
All I've ever asked is for one lab experiment that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding CO2 does ANY of the things its alleged and I get back nothing but stupidity and insults. Which leads me to believe that the contention that we're causing AGW is total horseshit.
More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!
You can't even read or count!
I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"
Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?
I don't think you know the difference between "active ingredients" and "inert ingredients". Differences need to be based on the former, NOT the latter. Maybe you can fool the unsophisticated, but you'd still get an 'F' in a real science class.
All I've ever asked is for one lab experiment that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding CO2 does ANY of the things its alleged and I get back nothing but stupidity and insults. Which leads me to believe that the contention that we're causing AGW is total horseshit.
If you're getting insults, it's because you keep posting the same faulty math.
More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!
You can't even read or count!
I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"
Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?
I don't think you know the difference between "active ingredients" and "inert ingredients". Differences need to be based on the former, NOT the latter. Maybe you can fool the unsophisticated, but you'd still get an 'F' in a real science class.