All of them? Where do you get this from?

His anal orifice it seems.

---

Not when the self-proclaimed 'scientists' act like religious fanatics.


When Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, he made two predictions, either of which would refute his theory if found to not be true. If anthropogenic CO2-induced global warming is actually a scientific theory (or even a scientific hypothesis) then tell me the test(s) that would refute it.

Why don't you tell us? While you're at it explain the difference between a theory and hypothesis without looking up the definitions.

---

All of them? Where do you get this from?

 

Not all of them. The ones who are regularly quoted in the media.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

His anal orifice it seems.

 

Typical leftist. When the facts don't support the argument, resort to insults.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Why don't you tell us? While you're at it explain the difference between a theory and hypothesis without looking up the definitions.

 

The point is that no tests have been put forth by the believers. There are no tests that can refute a religious belief.


 

At one point it was stated that ten years without warming would show that the idea was false. After ten years that was increased to 15. After 15 years it was again increased to 17. We're been at over 18 years without warming, so in 2014 the believers added a 0.1 degree warming adjustment since 2000. That's how religion, not science, deals with discrepancies.


 

Note the implication. By doing that they've admitted that as late as 2014 they didn't have the value right to within 0.1 degrees. That's a significant error when the total warming since 1979 is less that 0.5 degrees.


 

Believe what you want. Everyone is free to worship how they choose.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The point is that no tests have been put forth by the believers. There are no tests that can refute a religious belief.


 

At one point it was stated that ten years without warming would show that the idea was false. After ten years that was increased to 15. After 15 years it was again increased to 17. We're been at over 18 years without warming, so in 2014 the believers added a 0.1 degree warming adjustment since 2000. That's how religion, not science, deals with discrepancies.


 

Note the implication. By doing that they've admitted that as late as 2014 they didn't have the value right to within 0.1 degrees. That's a significant error when the total warming since 1979 is less that 0.5 degrees.


 

Believe what you want. Everyone is free to worship how they choose.

 

:thumbsup:

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The point is that no tests have been put forth by the believers. There are no tests that can refute a religious belief.


At one point it was stated that ten years without warming would show that the idea was false. After ten years that was increased to 15. After 15 years it was again increased to 17. We're been at over 18 years without warming, so in 2014 the believers added a 0.1 degree warming adjustment since 2000. That's how religion, not science, deals with discrepancies.


Note the implication. By doing that they've admitted that as late as 2014 they didn't have the value right to within 0.1 degrees. That's a significant error when the total warming since 1979 is less that 0.5 degrees.


Believe what you want. Everyone is free to worship how they choose.

Believing a scientist = worshipping a false religion.


Yea, we get it buddy. It's pretty obvious where you are coming from. I'm sorry your 2000 yr old textbook isn't holding up very well against the realities of this world.

---

Believing a scientist = worshipping a false religion.


Yea, we get it buddy. It's pretty obvious where you are coming from. I'm sorry your 2000 yr old textbook isn't holding up very well against the realities of this world.

 

You know scientists are mostly paid by federal grants, right?

---

Believing a scientist = worshipping a false religion.


Yea, we get it buddy. It's pretty obvious where you are coming from. I'm sorry your 2000 yr old textbook isn't holding up very well against the realities of this world.

Ive read through it a couple times. I dont remember ever seeing a passage that ties its veracity to the relative stasis of surface temperatures.


Nice to see you stabbing blindly to insult things you dont understand.

---

You know scientists are mostly paid by federal grants, right?

Another conspiracy theorist, huh? You know not all climate scientists are American, right? You know ALL science is mostly funded through grants anyways? Is is just climate scientists who lie and cheat? Or do all the scientists do it? Why is there a conspiracy?


Could it be that maybe instead of an international cabal of climate scientists conspiring to extort that juicy, juicy grant money (everyone knows if you wanna get rich, you become a scientist), it might be the case that they are just doing their job and that it is the poor, persecuted, honest politicians who are in cahoots with Big Business and making unsubstantiated claims that might be the ones to take a harder look at?


I mean, if a scientist - who has the data to back it up - and a politician - who represents his constituency - don't agree, why would you believe the politician?

---

Ive read through it a couple times. I dont remember ever seeing a passage that ties its veracity to the relative stasis of surface temperatures.


Nice to see you stabbing blindly to insult things you dont understand.

You did a what now?

---

Another conspiracy theorist, huh? You know not all climate scientists are American, right? You know ALL science is mostly funded through grants anyways? Is is just climate scientists who lie and cheat? Or do all the scientists do it? Why is there a conspiracy?


Could it be that maybe instead of an international cabal of climate scientists conspiring to extort that juicy, juicy grant money (everyone knows if you wanna get rich, you become a scientist), it might be the case that they are just doing their job and that it is the poor, persecuted, honest politicians who are in cahoots with Big Business and making unsubstantiated claims that might be the ones to take a harder look at?


I mean, if a scientist - who has the data to back it up - and a politician - who represents his constituency - don't agree, why would you believe the politician?

 

It's not so much a theory as it is just a fact that most scientific research is funded by federal grants.  With global warming, you have politicians with government funded scientific research backing up their claims.  Interpret the results how you want.  Look at the data itself and don't resort to, "well everybody believes it so, must be true."

---

It's not so much a theory as it is just a fact that most scientific research is funded by federal grants. With global warming, you have politicians with government funded scientific research backing up their claims. Interpret the results how you want. Look at the data itself and don't resort to, "well everybody believes it so, must be true."

The science is extremely easy if you are interested in the processes involved.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>

---

The science is extremely easy if you are interested in the processes involved.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>

 

you're acting like you actually studied research before coming to a conclusion.  we all know you were simply told by government and universities that it's man caused, therefore believed it.

 

a wiki article on global warming? lol

 

im not saying any amount of pollution is harmless.  im anti pollution. however, the propaganda for financial gain through taxation is just that... propaganda.

---

you're acting like you actually studied research before coming to a conclusion. we all know you were simply told by government and universities that it's man caused, therefore believed it.


a wiki article on global warming? lol

Hey... I was going to post that!

---

you're acting like you actually studied research before coming to a conclusion. we all know you were simply told by government and universities that it's man caused, therefore believed it.


a wiki article on global warming? lol


im not saying any amount of pollution is harmless. im anti pollution. however, the propaganda for financial gain through taxation is just that... propaganda.

Again, if you are interested, the science is easy.


But you rather believe the republicans. You have made your mind up before any argument has been presented. I can't help you, you have to help yourself.

---

What percent of global co2 is human technology responsible for.


Also give a detailed cost risk analyses for a proposal to curtail that number.

---

What percent of global co2 is human technology responsible for.


Also give a detailed cost risk analyses for a proposal to curtail that number.

You can google it if you want, I'm sure.

---

Can't stop, won't stop


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...-u-s-power

---

So you dont know, you dont know wjat ur proposing and u link to an article that shows u dont know what capitalism really is. So sad.

---