Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can ALMOST justify the military and the National Park system within the guidelines of the US Constitution..
I CANNOT however, justify the seizure of entire industries or sectors of economy there.
Nor is there room for the "moral distribution" of our wealth to other countries because we are delevoped and they are not.
Similarly, I see no permissions for us to practice Economic Imperialism and FORCE other countries to comply with our concepts of enviro or labor laws...
Except you can't prove your claim, and as I continue to point out you can't dispute his, Koch's,1901 experiment. You just can't, so old crock nothing has changed. So continue to post that link I will make my same post. So don't you regurgitate this link again. Find something that actually backs your claim.Mr. jc, this has been posted many, many times. It is a site of the largest scientific society on this planet, the American Institute of Physics, and it explains the history of the science concerning GHGs in the atmosphere.just post up one of those. Or can't you do that? Just curious. One can write anything on a message board it's something else to back up the statements. So provide one. Just one that validates that adding 120 PPM of CO2 changes temperatures. That one is the one I'd prefer to see.Are the volumes upon volumes of evidence provided by science unavailable to you that you need me to funnel it to you, or have you been clamping your hands over your eyes all this time?A scientific theory requires evidence to support the theory or better yet the hypothesis that turns into the theory requires testing and observed results of testing that proves the hypothesis and then it becomes a theory. Now, do you have any evidence to support global warming is caused by CO2?The fact that he signed on to global warming indicates the exact opposite. No one with a knowledge of the scientific method believes in global warming.
Here's another article you will neither read nor understand that lays out the case.
Aliens Cause Global Warming A Lecture by Michael Crichton Heartland Institute
I have spent my life in the maths and sciences, so there is nothing you could possibly comprehend that I wouldn't. This much we have learned many times on this forum.
The musings of a science fiction writer is not how a scientific theory is debunked. Sorry! Crichton has committed serious errors in previous papers. He has no serious standing in the community.
What happens when you do a search for the evidence? Does the government intercept your request and throw up a 404 page?
I cannot think of a rational explanation for why you have failed to encounter this evidence up to this point.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Perhaps you should actually read something, rather than just regurgitating the same old nonsense that you do constantly. There is no doubt in the scientific community as to the cause of the warming.
Mr. jc, this has been posted many, many times. It is a site of the largest scientific society on this planet, the American Institute of Physics, and it explains the history of the science concerning GHGs in the atmosphere.just post up one of those. Or can't you do that? Just curious. One can write anything on a message board it's something else to back up the statements. So provide one. Just one that validates that adding 120 PPM of CO2 changes temperatures. That one is the one I'd prefer to see.Are the volumes upon volumes of evidence provided by science unavailable to you that you need me to funnel it to you, or have you been clamping your hands over your eyes all this time?A scientific theory requires evidence to support the theory or better yet the hypothesis that turns into the theory requires testing and observed results of testing that proves the hypothesis and then it becomes a theory. Now, do you have any evidence to support global warming is caused by CO2?The fact that he signed on to global warming indicates the exact opposite. No one with a knowledge of the scientific method believes in global warming.
Here's another article you will neither read nor understand that lays out the case.
Aliens Cause Global Warming A Lecture by Michael Crichton Heartland Institute
I have spent my life in the maths and sciences, so there is nothing you could possibly comprehend that I wouldn't. This much we have learned many times on this forum.
The musings of a science fiction writer is not how a scientific theory is debunked. Sorry! Crichton has committed serious errors in previous papers. He has no serious standing in the community.
What happens when you do a search for the evidence? Does the government intercept your request and throw up a 404 page?
I cannot think of a rational explanation for why you have failed to encounter this evidence up to this point.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Perhaps you should actually read something, rather than just regurgitating the same old nonsense that you do constantly. There is no doubt in the scientific community as to the cause of the warming.
No Billy, it is you that fails to understand simple science - and you fail willfully. When you accuse us of having failed that understanding, you are telling us that it is a mistake to believe the world's scientists. You are telling us that the world's scientists don't understand the absolute basics of the topics in which they have attained the highest level of education possible. AND you believe they are all willing to lie about their findings in order to get rich.
Billy, do you REALLY believe that you understand basic science better than thousands of the world's PhD scientists? Even if you actually WERE in a PhD program, I could not accept that and you shouldn't either. And, I'm sorry, but given the content and tone of your postings here, I absolutely do not believe that claim.
No Billy, it is you that fails to understand simple science - and you fail willfully. When you accuse us of having failed that understanding, you are telling us that it is a mistake to believe the world's scientists. You are telling us that the world's scientists don't understand the absolute basics of the topics in which they have attained the highest level of education possible. AND you believe they are all willing to lie about their findings in order to get rich.
Billy, do you REALLY believe that you understand basic science better than thousands of the world's PhD scientists? Even if you actually WERE in a PhD program, I could not accept that and you shouldn't either. And, I'm sorry, but given the content and tone of your postings here, I absolutely do not believe that claim.
No Billy, it is you that fails to understand simple science - and you fail willfully. When you accuse us of having failed that understanding, you are telling us that it is a mistake to believe the world's scientists. You are telling us that the world's scientists don't understand the absolute basics of the topics in which they have attained the highest level of education possible. AND you believe they are all willing to lie about their findings in order to get rich.
Billy, do you REALLY believe that you understand basic science better than thousands of the world's PhD scientists? Even if you actually WERE in a PhD program, I could not accept that and you shouldn't either. And, I'm sorry, but given the content and tone of your postings here, I absolutely do not believe that claim.
First and foremost climate science is pure conjecture as they intentionally fail to follow the scientific method, they hide their work, hide the data, falsify the data when their models fail, and the list goes on and on of things no scientist with any ethical or moral fiber would allow to happen.
This is the primary focus of a paper I am writing, much to the dismay of some of my coworkers. exposing how science has been corrupted by political agenda. Funny how you embrace deception from these people and do not call them on it.
It is way past time to stop being politically correct and call these people what they are, LIARS!
I just lost any respect for this pope and will never listen to anything from him again.
But what I find AMAZING. is all these people who didn't BELEIVE all of a sudden have now found RELIGION.
Phony hypocrites are the most dangerous of people
No Billy, it is you that fails to understand simple science - and you fail willfully. When you accuse us of having failed that understanding, you are telling us that it is a mistake to believe the world's scientists. You are telling us that the world's scientists don't understand the absolute basics of the topics in which they have attained the highest level of education possible. AND you believe they are all willing to lie about their findings in order to get rich.
Billy, do you REALLY believe that you understand basic science better than thousands of the world's PhD scientists? Even if you actually WERE in a PhD program, I could not accept that and you shouldn't either. And, I'm sorry, but given the content and tone of your postings here, I absolutely do not believe that claim.
First and foremost climate science is pure conjecture as they intentionally fail to follow the scientific method, they hide their work, hide the data, falsify the data when their models fail, and the list goes on and on of things no scientist with any ethical or moral fiber would allow to happen.
This is the primary focus of a paper I am writing, much to the dismay of some of my coworkers. exposing how science has been corrupted by political agenda. Funny how you embrace deception from these people and do not call them on it.
It is way past time to stop being politically correct and call these people what they are, LIARS!
What?
I thought you and other Conservatives find it sacrilegious to criticize Nixon, Thatcher, and Reagan?
How far today's Republican Party has fallen from conservative values? I would say, so far they can no longer call themselves conservatives or God fearing or Jesus loving. I don't know what to call today's Republican party but conservative and religious are two words that no longer apply to mainstream Republicans.
When Margaret Thatcher and the Dalai Lama Agree
June 15, 2015
Environmental protection forms part of the mainstream of the Anglo-American conservative political tradition. Policy debate on climate change should recognise this.
Climate change is often seen as a politically divisive issue, with those on the left more active and concerned than conservatives. And indeed there is much evidence that those with different values perceive the issue differently. However, concern about climate change can be placed firmly in the mainstream of the conservative tradition[ii].
Traditional conservatism has long emphasised the need for people to safeguard for future generations that which they have inherited. Edmund Burke, widely regarded as the founder of modern conservatism, put this case in the context of the French revolution, arguing that people:
“should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of an habitation.”[iii]
Environmental damage was far from being a hot political issue in Burke’s time, but it is a small step to apply this idea of safeguarding an inheritance to environmental conservation. Republican US President Ronald Reagan again did exactly this when he said:
“What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live … And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live — our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.”[iv]
Another Republican US president, Richard Nixon stressed the need to safeguard the natural environment, and that freedom does not include the right to impose costs on others:
“Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions … Clean air, clean water, open spaces—these should once again be the birthright of every American. We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources, which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor’s yard.”[v]
Such sentiments have in the past been translated into action by conservative politicians. The 1956 Clean Air Act was passed by a Conservative government in the UK, and the US Environmental Protection Agency was founded in 1970 during the Nixon presidency.
The UK Climate Change Act was passed in 2008 with cross party support, with only five Members of Parliament (less than 1%) voting against. Going further back, the UNFCCC was signed by British Conservative Prime Minister John Major and by Republican US President George Bush, along with the representatives of over 160 other governments. The Hadley Centre, one of the world’s leading climate research centres, was established in 1990 under a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher, who opened the centre herself.
Indeed Margaret Thatcher was among the first senior politicians to talk about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spoke eloquently about the consistency between environmental protection and conservative values. In 1988, the same year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established and four years before the UNFCCC was signed, she said to the Conservative Party conference, talking about a range of environmental problems including climate change:
It’s we Conservatives who are not merely friends of the Earth—we are its guardians and trustees for generations to come. The core of Tory philosophy and the case for protecting the environment are the same. No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full.[vi]
This metaphor of the earth as our home of which we are guardians, and which it is our duty to protect, is common among those who otherwise hold widely differing points of view. The Dalai Lama has said that:
“The earth is our only home … If we do not look after this home, what else are we charged to do on this earth?” [vii]
There is, and should be, much debate about the specific details of climate change policy. But there should be no debate about the necessity and value of the objective of safeguarding the earth. When Margaret Thatcher and the Dalai Lama can express almost the same idea in almost the same terms, people can surely develop a sense of common purpose about preventing severe climate change. This has never been more necessary.
<snip>
.
First and foremost climate science is pure conjecture as they intentionally fail to follow the scientific method, they hide their work, hide the data, falsify the data when their models fail, and the list goes on and on of things no scientist with any ethical or moral fiber would allow to happen.
This is the primary focus of a paper I am writing, much to the dismay of some of my coworkers. exposing how science has been corrupted by political agenda. Funny how you embrace deception from these people and do not call them on it.
It is way past time to stop being politically correct and call these people what they are, LIARS!
First and foremost climate science is pure conjecture as they intentionally fail to follow the scientific method, they hide their work, hide the data, falsify the data when their models fail, and the list goes on and on of things no scientist with any ethical or moral fiber would allow to happen.
Every one of these is an unsubstantiated assertion and, in fact, are assertions refuted by the facts.
This is the primary focus of a paper I am writing, much to the dismay of some of my coworkers. exposing how science has been corrupted by political agenda. Funny how you embrace deception from these people and do not call them on it.
It is way past time to stop being politically correct and call these people what they are, LIARS!
Okay. Billy Bob, you are a LIAR.
First and foremost climate science is pure conjecture as they intentionally fail to follow the scientific method, they hide their work, hide the data, falsify the data when their models fail, and the list goes on and on of things no scientist with any ethical or moral fiber would allow to happen.
Every one of these is an unsubstantiated assertion and, in fact, are assertions refuted by the facts.
This is the primary focus of a paper I am writing, much to the dismay of some of my coworkers. exposing how science has been corrupted by political agenda. Funny how you embrace deception from these people and do not call them on it.
It is way past time to stop being politically correct and call these people what they are, LIARS!
Okay. Billy Bob, you are a LIAR.
First and foremost climate science is pure conjecture as they intentionally fail to follow the scientific method, they hide their work, hide the data, falsify the data when their models fail, and the list goes on and on of things no scientist with any ethical or moral fiber would allow to happen.
Every one of these is an unsubstantiated assertion and, in fact, are assertions refuted by the facts.
This is the primary focus of a paper I am writing, much to the dismay of some of my coworkers. exposing how science has been corrupted by political agenda. Funny how you embrace deception from these people and do not call them on it.
It is way past time to stop being politically correct and call these people what they are, LIARS!
Okay. Billy Bob, you are a LIAR.
Your just like the Pope, You dont know shit about what you speak of...
You're not keeping up with the times, Stephanie. A strong majority of Americans not only believe AGW is real but believe we should do something about it and believe they want to vote for someone who takes the problem seriously.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html?_r=0
If you could try to imagine yourself someone who believes that the overwhelming opinion of the world's scientists is the likeliest view to be correct. Would such a person need to be paid to do what I do? Do you need to be paid to get out of the way of an oncoming bus? Do you need to be paid to feed yourself and drink fluids each day? Do you need to be paid to work towards a better life for your children and theirs?
I bet not, Stephanie.
PS, if you go to that link, at the beginning of the article, on the right side of the screen, is a black pull-down button which reads: "Show responses from: ALL ADULTS". You can pull that down and replace ALL ADULTS with REPUBLICANS or ten other categories of respondents. Check out how Americans like you answered the questions.
