Sun explodes in activity!!!

Mathew, by addressing a scientific issue as something that should be addressed in a scientific manner, you have branded yourself as a 'Leftie'.

These are not the conservatives of the 40's, 50's, and 60's, these are the 'Conservatives' of today, where reality is what you desire it to be. No matter what the evidence is.

Where is the "Evidence" that you were able to eliminate all variables except for an almost imperceptible increase in the atmospheric rounding error of an element CO2?

Where?
 
Mathew, by addressing a scientific issue as something that should be addressed in a scientific manner, you have branded yourself as a 'Leftie'.

These are not the conservatives of the 40's, 50's, and 60's, these are the 'Conservatives' of today, where reality is what you desire it to be. No matter what the evidence is.

Where is the "Evidence" that you were able to eliminate all variables except for an almost imperceptible increase in the atmospheric rounding error of an element CO2?

Where?

It's NOT FAIR to pin down an AGW Faither with a direct scientific question going to the heart of the alleged "science" of their Faith.
 
Mathew, by addressing a scientific issue as something that should be addressed in a scientific manner, you have branded yourself as a 'Leftie'.

These are not the conservatives of the 40's, 50's, and 60's, these are the 'Conservatives' of today, where reality is what you desire it to be. No matter what the evidence is.

Where is the "Evidence" that you were able to eliminate all variables except for an almost imperceptible increase in the atmospheric rounding error of an element CO2?

Where?

It's NOT FAIR to pin down an AGW Faither with a direct scientific question going to the heart of the alleged "science" of their Faith.

The skeptics seem to have more "faith" than anyone else, that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as earth. Basically, their God is The Sun and their devil is Algorzebub!
 
Where is the "Evidence" that you were able to eliminate all variables except for an almost imperceptible increase in the atmospheric rounding error of an element CO2?

Where?

It's NOT FAIR to pin down an AGW Faither with a direct scientific question going to the heart of the alleged "science" of their Faith.

The skeptics seem to have more "faith" than anyone else, that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as earth. Basically, their God is The Sun and their devil is Algorzebub!

Nonsense.

Present CREDIBLE scientific evidence, not speculation. Present hard data, not questionable data. Report it accurately, not mystically. Use scientific method. At some point accept the notion that you need to embrace the notion of Falsifiability.

Demanding that the AGW Faithers provide actual and scientifically valid and acceptable data, and employ the rigors of scientific method is not akin to the skeptics engaging in "faith," except maybe faith in science itself.
 
Where is the "Evidence" that you were able to eliminate all variables except for an almost imperceptible increase in the atmospheric rounding error of an element CO2?

Where?

It's NOT FAIR to pin down an AGW Faither with a direct scientific question going to the heart of the alleged "science" of their Faith.

The skeptics seem to have more "faith" than anyone else, that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as earth. Basically, their God is The Sun and their devil is Algorzebub!

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." --IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org
 
It's NOT FAIR to pin down an AGW Faither with a direct scientific question going to the heart of the alleged "science" of their Faith.

The skeptics seem to have more "faith" than anyone else, that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as earth. Basically, their God is The Sun and their devil is Algorzebub!

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." --IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

SEE!!! They also quote from "scripture". :lol::lol::lol:
 
The skeptics seem to have more "faith" than anyone else, that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as earth. Basically, their God is The Sun and their devil is Algorzebub!

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." --IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

SEE!!! They also quote from "scripture". :lol::lol::lol:

Quoting one of "them" to prove that they work off of an agenda isn't even remotely akin to quoting scripture.

:cuckoo:
 
"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." --IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

SEE!!! They also quote from "scripture". :lol::lol::lol:

Quoting one of "them" to prove that they work off of an agenda isn't even remotely akin to quoting scripture.

:cuckoo:

Sorry, out-of-context quotations. That's also very common amongst the religiously conservative, cherry-picking passages to "prove" their point. Jones comment, for example, could be true AND AGW could be true. Cherry-picking a short time period is what the skeptics say they believers do. Why should we put any weight on that paricular quote?
 
SEE!!! They also quote from "scripture". :lol::lol::lol:

Quoting one of "them" to prove that they work off of an agenda isn't even remotely akin to quoting scripture.

:cuckoo:

Sorry, out-of-context quotations. That's also very common amongst the religiously conservative, cherry-picking passages to "prove" their point. Jones comment, for example, could be true AND AGW could be true. Cherry-picking a short time period is what the skeptics say they believers do. Why should we put any weight on that paricular quote?

Jones' statement is obviously true, and the point is that it explains why the the AGW Faithers do and say the idiotic crap they do and say.

You dopes contend that "AGW 'could' be true." Helpful bit of sophistry. :lol:

But not even remotely scientific.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top