Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

[towlie]

Need I continue.

No sir. You’ve quite clearly demonstrated that you don’t have a clue what an ad homonym attack is. Bravo… Just lovely.

And by all means, please keep posting for the fence riders. Now when anyone seeks the opinion of an individual who doesn’t realize ‘Al Gore’ is comprised of two words will have yours. You’re such a giver.

Now I’m through with you.

P.S. I’ll wait a couple more days to see if anyone pushing the GW-fraud theory can provide a single scientifically published study refuting the ‘Man-Made’ link… But given the pathetic article this thread was started with, I won’t hold my breath.

Warm regards… Even to you Ccodiane.

 

[ccodiane]

"You’ve quite clearly demonstrated that you don’t have a clue what an ad homonym attack is."

-consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.- Sure I do, it's what you and yours reliably and consistently do to President Bush among others.
"Now when anyone seeks the opinion of an individual who doesn’t realize ‘Al Gore’ is comprised of two words will have yours."

I'm not talking about the mortal man, Albert "Al" Gore Jr., I'm talking about the "Super Algore" character you have invented to further your arguments. Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Flattery

"Now I’m through with you."

I haven't even started with you.

"P.S. I’ll wait a couple more days to see if anyone pushing the GW-fraud theory can provide a single scientifically published study refuting the ‘Man-Made’ link… But given the pathetic article this thread was started with, I won’t hold my breath."

To begin with, P.S. comes at the end of the message, but I'm sure you knew that. As for the rest, the Man Made Global Warming fraud theory is yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Burden of Proof. Showing satellite pictures of ice melting proves only that ice melts. Confusing Cause and Effect.

"Warm regards… Even to you Ccodiane."

Toasty planet regards to you too, tvwatchinwetowely

 

[closet.cult]

Well, I have no intention of insulting anyone...until they insult me.

My point of posting this article is to help people remember that 2 things:

1) There are plenty of professional scientists and scientifically minded people in the world who see plainly that global warming is a political invention, nothing more. What they polititions have to gain, one can only speculate. But the fact is, the SCIENCE behind MAN'S ROLE in global warming is complete rubish.

the science behind global warming is fine. everyone knows the earth is comming down from a little ice age. the question that seems to be misunderstood is: what is normal? the last five warm ages were MUCH warmer then this one. this planet could warm considerably and some life would die, some would adapt and live. Humans adapted and survived just fine during the MUCH warmer periods, obviously, even without air conditioning and technology.

and 2) that fact that 'the concensus of sciencetists agrees with global warming' means exactly squat.

i quote Michael Crichton, in a debate on climate crisis:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

what is needed on global warming is true scientific experiments, not computer climate models, on what CO2 ACTUALLY does in the troposphere. what measurable results occure? what do they predict?

Those ideas have been tested, and when they do they predict that there is a cap, a limit on how far the planet will warm due to the greenhouse gas CO2. and it is low! there is no way, CO2 alone will cerate a climate crisis. if you haven't heard this, i'm not surprised. Al Gore wouldn't want you knowing that that there is a diminishing value on warming treads due to increased CO2.

so, everytime you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of greenhouse warming possible is less then the previous double. This can be explained in the movie: "What is normal?"- on youtube. I can also be found on one of the best climate skeptics webstes: SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project

Who are they?- The Science & Environmental Policy Project was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer on the premise that sound, credible science must form the basis for health and environmental decisions that affect millions of people and cost tens of billions of dollars every year.

The science does not support man-made global warming, IMO. So, I intend to post articals by reputable sources which confirm with new and interesting facts and testable observation to that effect, for my brothers here on RIU. Why? Because it looks like a tax scam and conspiracy to halt global advancements by 3rd world nations, all wrapped up in a 'save the earth' package. I feel it is my duty to help people see the nature of this scam, by pointing out the scams weakest link: the science.

Just think about it: the most convincing and appealing tactic of global warming is these spectacular images of ice shelves calving off. and dry rivers & lost glaciers. All emotion, no proof. what does that prove about man's role? absolutly nothing! and the science is all speculative: computer models of the earth's climate and weather 100 years from now, when they can't get next weeks wether right. disproved 'hockey stick' graphs which end abruptly about 1999 because planet earth STOPPED warming 8 years ago, if you haven't heard, and has been on a slight cooling trend. And of course, when that fails they will try to tell you that 'the concensus of scientists' believes it. As if that settles the question. There is no need for anymore science and testing.

You may attack me for saying these things, but what does that prove? You may attack the journalists and scientist I post, but how does that change the facts? I'm asking everyone to hear out the dissenters in this case. It is far from settled and I believe true science will win and shrug off this notion of global warming, soon enough.

Peace & good science, my friends,

CC

 

[medicineman]

Here's a look at S. Fred Singer, the author of the above post:

His most recent sole-author publication on global warming was a letter about other scientists' research which appeared in OpenDNS, December 16, 1997.[21] However, Singer is also listed as co-author of two 2004 articles in Geophysics Research Letters.[22]
David Bellamy has said that most glaciers have been advancing since 1980 as evidence against global warming. This contrasts with the scientific consensus that the vast majority of glaciers have been retreating since 1850. In an editorial in The Guardian, George Monbiot said that Bellamy's argument came from Singer, and that Singer's stated source[23] is an unspecified 1989 article in Science. Monbiot reports that he performed both electronic and manual searches of the journal, and found no such article.[24]
A 2007 OpenDNS cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[25]

So much for that guys credibility. Man induced Global warming is real, wake up.

 

[ccodiane]

"this planet could warm considerably and some life would die, some would adapt and live."

Just a point and not a attack. Why do people fail to mention the fact that much life would THRIVE!! How do we know that the wonderful diversity we currently have on this planet is not due in part to mass die offs, ecological shifts, extreme temperature swings, etc. Only the strong shall survive. Its a beautiful concept. The fact that this planet is possibly billions of years old, and has managed to populate itself with such an enormous wealth of life, yet so fragile that any change, whether man made? or otherwise, can upset the balance and permanently damage all life and the planet itself, is ridiculous, no?

 

[closet.cult]

yes, ccodiane. this is a called non-linear dynamic system. it is choas and complexity which rules the ecology and planet. anyone would have to be mad to think that the simple programs they write and simple diagrams they draw could even hope to explain the vast influences on both.

and it is the dieing off of some species that allows a new one to develope. this is natural and desired. anything remaining stagnant, would surely begin to experience entrophy.

med: I can't verify what you wrote right now, but in regards to propaganda, i can only say that it is appropriate to fight fire with fire. the vast sums of money being spent to mislead people about global warming must be challanged somehow.

 

[threatlevelorange]

How is this not a dead issue yet? Even if there was man-made global warming there is nothing that can be done about it. Why would kyoto be voted out 97-0 in the senate that claims to be so environmentally concerned? It is a waste and so are the way we pollute the world by building homes, and supporting NASA. Those two factors incur C02 more than the combustible engine...times 50MM

 

[ccodiane]

How so? Where is the info coming from? NASA, combustible engine....

 

[threatlevelorange]

How so? Where is the info coming from? NASA, combustible engine....

Well, i pretty much consider this a dead issue...but briefly:

The amount of pollution generated by one single launch is more than you would realize. Personally, I think NASA is more like an arms race than anything useful. It's almost like a way to show who can land on the moon first, get to mars first, ect. I don't think we are making any real advancements with that program. That's besides the point. The amount of c02 involved in building houses is greater than that of cars. You don't hear people talking about these things, though. I don't know why. I guess we need houses and NASA is here to stay, so we make hybrids which cause more pollution to create than a conventional car. Sigh...I could go on for days. This is just one big scheme to add another tax and increase the size and control of government....carbon footprint tax...meh!

I bet you Al Gore won't pay that damn tax with his private jet and all.

 

[towlie]

Thanks for your thoughtful response Closet.Cult. I read it and you had some interesting things to say… Unfortunately I’ve got a boatload of work this week, so I probably won’t get to respond until this weekend.

The first thing I’m going to ask you is why are there so many scientifically peer reviewed studies linking Global Warming to man made CO2 emissions? Furthermore why are there (to my knowledge, and I’d love it if you could prove me wrong) no scientifically performed studies refuting it? And since there are none, why are you pushing it?

The hardest thing for me so far (at least with Ccodiane) is that the people trying to debunk GW seem to have very little understanding of science and the method of critical thinking that brought us out of the dark ages.

So in anticipation of my real response that I’ll bang out next weekend… Do I need to start with the history of science? I’d probably start with beginning of the dark ages and the fall of the Library of Alexandria… Then probably bring up scientific studies that were kept from the public (Galileo, Copernicus, etc.) Or can we get past the elementary school level fundamentals in science and agree that any study that claims to be scientific merely because a PhD’s penned it is neither scientific nor worthy of debate??? This will take me at least an hour so I’d prefer just get past the obvious and move onto my real question.

My real question: Why are people trying to debunk a scientific theory that is backed with thousands of scientific studies when they have none that back their argument? And in anticipation of your next question “prove it!” I already have provided a link to thousands and singled out my favorite on this site… and I’ll provide these again if necessary… But my question to that is “If you don’t realize that there are thousands of scientific studies linking GW to CO2 emissions and none disproving it, then why are you even pretending to be educated in this debate???”

Also, I’d like to offer my apology to Ccodiane. I did attack him in the ‘Ad Hominim.” As I mentioned in my first response, I didn’t think I could debate him without bringing up the obvious fact that he is clearly stupid. This is why I have chosen not to debate him.

 

[may]

Exactly. Just like the overly intellectual Scientists and PHD’s who claim that planes never hit the WTC. Just because some dude with credentials that read like the phone book objects to scientific consensus doesn’t necessarily warrant debate… Incidentally, this guy’s credentials aren’t that impressive.
And yes, I realize the scientific consensus has been wrong before, but now that we’re out of college let’s not bank our lives on hitting ‘69’ on the roulette table of global clusterfuck! While you might dismiss our children as tools for alarmist propaganda, the rest of us are a little curious why you’d let us care more about yours than you???

Who all do you speak for?
When you say that you speak for the rest of us then act as if he was alone in his thinking, makes you egocentric and very wrong.
Were you elected to speak for this group?

While there may be consensus that there is global warming....... You seem to think that there is consensus that it is caused by man!!!! Wrong!!!

I read your little article, and it raised a lot of issues. Some I may only imagine are quite valid… but I’ll never know, because while he references what he refers to as “studies”, he never refers to them as “scientific studies” or provides a published study number. This fires my bullshit radar for several reasons.

*Firstly, this dude clearly has no idea as to how important it is to perform a study in a scientifically controlled double blind manner.

Please explain why the studies would need to be performed in a double blind manner?

Then explain how a study like this would be setup so it could be performed in a double blind manner?

*Secondly, if he provided a reference I could easily google it and gain access to the peer reviewed critiques published by experts employed for the sole purpose of rebutting the said study.

*Thirdly, he’s attacking global warming yet never even addresses, actually he never even mentions the major arguments in the scientific community. To put things in a litmus I believe we can agree on: This dude's a dolt of Michael Moore proportions.

Albore is a dolt of michael moore proportions and the movies of both give proof to this and only a true dolt wouldn't note this.

About a month ago I got sucked into a Global Warming debate on this site. I referenced what I believe are the top three US Climatological research centers. There I referenced several hundred scientifically peer reviewed studies… Of which one 1997 study I challenged him to search any major news organization’s history and find a single article that didn’t claim the Global Warming debate over.

Are you truly so dumb as to think the debate is over?

Do you think that the facts are in and you know the truth?

His rebuttal was that I was getting all of my information from a single source (I listed the top three but whatever) and he said I should Google the rebuttal, and furthermore when will America learn? Well Jesus… I don’t know… maybe it’s because our high school students rank 29th in science.

I think you were in the mix that lead to the 29th rank

So my question to you is this: Which of the studies that he uses for the basis of his argument were performed in a scientific peer reviewed manner, and if none of them are then why are you pushing this bullshit… or do you not know why the method of reasoning that brought us out of the dark ages is important either???

So you don't know what the dark ages were do you?

 

[ccodiane]

Dearest towelie,

You are clearly the biggest blabbermouth on this site, in my glorious opinion. You and political bubba, and thats saying something. You could spend tens of hours writing, millions of words even, and when you were finished you wouldn't sound any more ignorant, or knowledgeable, on the subject than you make yourself out to be in the first few sentences. You have been debating me, (its on the record you idiot), you are clearly losing the debate, so now you're not debating me? You're a riot! Not to mention you have yet to find fault in my position and point it out, except for your feeble attempts to say I only implement one argument, and so I relish the victory. PS It only took a couple of minutes to write this you "dolt", haha, you're such an idiot. You should try it sometime and then maybe you can get some "work" done.

 

[towlie]

Okay. I figured that I should probably just try to bang this out early. I don’t have the time to make this argument properly so I just do the best in the 30 minutes that I have.

Science 101: This is going to sound a bit preachy & I don’t have time to look up dates and verify particulars so bear with me.

Many scholars mark the fall of the great Library of Alexandria as the starting point of the dark ages (not the fall itself, but the time period.) The Library had at the time amassed the largest sum of scientific information, and would continue to hold this record for about the next 1,500 years. They knew the stars were very far away, they knew the brain was the center of though… Look up Erastosthenes method of calculating the circumference of the earth (It’s the shiznit of BC science.) If memory serves me right, Mark Antony donated 250K scrolls as a wedding present to Cleopatra. It also contained a wealth of art.

After Constantine (neither a Christian or a saint) converted to Christianity (300 BC about… I think) he started the trend in Rome. His successor (I forget his name) ordered the destruction of the Library and all pagan libraries on the grounds of heresy. Thus begins the era in which, over the next 1,000+ years, scientific advancement begins at the horse and buggy and ends with larger horses and buggies. (Keep in mind that Rome had invented a system of potable running water via aqueducts about 1,000 years earlier.)

Those who attempted science were often murdered or at least demonized and put under house arrest (See Copernicus or Galileo.) So what is the method of scientific reasoning that brought us out??? Can anyone tell me??? No one seems to know it.

Scientific Debate (I Googled this): “The scientific debate is a post-publication filtering and evaluation tool for the scientific literature.”

For a study to be scientific it must contain the following:

• Hypothesis
• Experimentation
• Refine Hypothesis based on initial experimentation.
• Final Experimentation
• Final Statement
• Publish in a scientific journal… Accompany with expert peer review.

The above has considerable variations, so please, let’s not debate semantics. The mother of scientific studies are double blind… In which the researchers are and those being researched on are blind from the experiment. For example in a placebo study neither the researcher or patient would know if he was administering a placebo or the real drug. It’s harder to skew research this way. Sometimes this method isn’t possible so you’ll have a single blind study, etc. All science should be published where experts in the field are paid for the sole purpose of debunking the experiment. Do any of you remember Pons and Fleischmann and cold fusion? Google it for a good laugh.

 

[towlie]

The level of this debate. The above gives you an idea of where I’m coming from. So I when I pop in and simply ask the question “Are any of these studies scientific?”

I am met with the response: “Towlie, your arguments are all wet. Get a clue, dude. And I'll bet my bottom dollar you use gasoline, and every other fossil fuel that powers this economy and your loudmouth bloviations via the computer.”

And furthermore: “You probably watch tv you hypocrite. You probably even bought a tv you hypocrite. Towlie, you see the southpark spoofing global warming and algore? If so, spend your time more productively and sit in the dark and think about not breathing.”

You may assume on all further responses that I heat my house with baby seal blubber. It’s still irrelevant. And your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you succumb to abject poverty to argue in favor of GW reveals nothing other than your complete hatred of those who are different than you.

If I am not mistaken, the first response is the only that does not contain Al Gore’s name or some uniquely “clever” spelling. For the record, I have not seen Al Gore’s movie, I voted for him for Vice President but never as president, I think he’s douche and a coward because when then Gov. Bush said in the first debate that “Al Gore needs to explain his book” Gore turned noticeably red and coward.

For the record Ccodaine. ‘Ad Hominem’ is Latin for attack the man. If I said “The sky is blue.” And you said “No it’s not because you’re a fucktard!” This would be an ad hominem attack. You may very well be correct, but you have attacked the man and not the idea. When I say these studies don’t appear to be scientific and you say, “Fuck you. You probably use gasoline.” This too is an ad hominem attack. When Al Gore says, “Think about the children.” This is what Greek Philosopher Aristotle defined as “Pathos.” Every great argument contains it, so I’m not really sure why you’re offended… Actually I am. From your obvious bigotry, you are unmistakably a xenophobe. Clearly you have disdain for anyone who thinks and looks differently than you (as these are the only arguments you’ve used to date.) I have been on this group for several months now and have never called anyone stupid. But put yourself in my shoes. I’m trying to have a discussion about science, and you’re stuck on the definition of ‘Ad Hominem.’

As I’ve said, I’d feel greatly enlightened if someone could point me to a real scientific study debunking the GW link to man. I think we know by now that it’s not going to happen.

Closet.Cult. Again thanks for your response. I’ll respond to you directly tonight.

Kind regards.

 

[may]

Okay. I figured that I should probably just try to bang this out early. I don’t have the time to make this argument properly so I just do the best in the 30 minutes that I have.

Science 101: This is going to sound a bit preachy & I don’t have time to look up dates and verify particulars so bear with me.

Many scholars mark the fall of the great Library of Alexandria as the starting point of the dark ages (not the fall itself, but the time period.) The Library had at the time amassed the largest sum of scientific information, and would continue to hold this record for about the next 1,500 years. They knew the stars were very far away, they knew the brain was the center of though… Look up Erastosthenes method of calculating the circumference of the earth (It’s the shiznit of BC science.) If memory serves me right, Mark Antony donated 250K scrolls as a wedding present to Cleopatra. It also contained a wealth of art.

After Constantine (neither a Christian or a saint) converted to Christianity (300 BC about… I think) he started the trend in Rome. His successor (I forget his name) ordered the destruction of the Library and all pagan libraries on the grounds of heresy. Thus begins the era in which, over the next 1,000+ years, scientific advancement begins at the horse and buggy and ends with larger horses and buggies. (Keep in mind that Rome had invented a system of potable running water via aqueducts about 1,000 years earlier.)

Rome did build one hell of a system for water supply, but invented sorry, others had systems before rome and one that you should know of and that the romans were sure to have known of. I think you should come up with this.

Those who attempted science were often murdered or at least demonized and put under house arrest (See Copernicus or Galileo.) So what is the method of scientific reasoning that brought us out??? Can anyone tell me??? No one seems to know it.

While you may have heard of the socratic method you seem to be bit short when it comes to its use. I prescribe a glass of hemlock to cure your lack of scientific reasoning.

Scientific Debate (I Googled this): “The scientific debate is a post-publication filtering and evaluation tool for the scientific literature.”

For a study to be scientific it must contain the following:

• Hypothesis
• Experimentation
• Refine Hypothesis based on initial experimentation.
• Final Experimentation
• Final Statement
• Publish in a scientific journal… Accompany with expert peer review.

The above has considerable variations, so please, let’s not debate semantics. The mother of scientific studies are double blind… In which the researchers are and those being researched on are blind from the experiment. For example in a placebo study neither the researcher or patient would know if he was administering a placebo or the real drug. It’s harder to skew research this way. Sometimes this method isn’t possible so you’ll have a single blind study, etc. All science should be published where experts in the field are paid for the sole purpose of debunking the experiment. Do any of you remember Pons and Fleischmann and cold fusion? Google it for a good laugh.

I can tell you had Psych 101 where you picked up double blind studies, but you trying to use such in a case like GW PROVES that you truly don't understand scientific studies at all. All you have proven is that you are still in school or at least you should be.

Good luck with your studies.

Being a thermodynamics buff I find cold fusion to be a oxymoran. But if you add a shortage for a trigger mechanism to the above you could come up with a very good conspiracy, and thats no laugh.

You still didn't prove you understand what made it the dark ages.

Come back when you have had a chance to google some more.

 

[ccodiane]

The level of this debate. The above gives you an idea of where I’m coming from. So I when I pop in and simply ask the question “Are any of these studies scientific?”

I am met with the response: “Towlie, your arguments are all wet. Get a clue, dude. And I'll bet my bottom dollar you use gasoline, and every other fossil fuel that powers this economy and your loudmouth bloviations via the computer.”

And furthermore: “You probably watch tv you hypocrite. You probably even bought a tv you hypocrite. Towlie, you see the southpark spoofing global warming and algore? If so, spend your time more productively and sit in the dark and think about not breathing.”

"Towlie, your arguments are all wet. Get a clue, dude. And I'll bet my bottom dollar You use gasoline, and every other fossil fuel that powers this economy and your loudmouth bloviations via the computer."

Since you are starting to get/are redundant, as this whole silly "argument" has become, I guess I will start over where we began. It sure kicked your ass the last time. Why else would you waste yours and my time regurgitating a history lesson we can all read about on any Google site and not have to worry about some blithering assholes spin on things.

"Double blind experiment", on the earth?, you really are really really dumb. Here's a wikipedia exp. that probably won't help you. Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour. You see, we would need two earths to do your double blind, and neither would be able to know that we are experimenting on them. They will probably feel the "prick" and know whats going on. Then we would have to find two new earths and start the experiment over. This could take billions of years!!! Maybe I'll be around to read your findings, I won't bank on it though.

8 minutes, done!

 

[ccodiane]

I know how you've come to love my double posts, towthelie, so I couldn't resist. "If I said “The sky is blue.” And you said “No it’s not because you’re a fucktard!” This would be an ad hominem attack. You may very well be correct, but you have attacked the man and not the idea." Thanks for the def. fucktard!!hahahaha
Responding to your posts are like digging for gold in a big ass pile of gold. How fun!!!

 

[closet.cult]

towlie, with all due respect, i do not need a science lesson or a science history lesson. i am wholly commited to science as the ways and means of saving this planet and our race. science is a candle in this dark, imaginary demon and god haunted world.

the fact is: when i am skeptical about global warming it is because science does NOT support it. i found this out by listening and reading the publications of BOTH SIDES of the arguement. i believe wholeheartedly that this is the key problem with this and many other issues. people tend to make up their minds and REFUSE to hear any voice fromthe oposing side. how is this good science? Einstein said: hundreds can disagree with me, but 'it only takes one of them to prove me wrong.'

please respond to this, towlie:
the entire case of man-made global warming hinges on rising CO2, nothing more. do you agree? is there ANYTHING else: chemical, element or heat source which scientists are pointing to as a global warming culprit? the answer is NO.

so, climate scientists have ONE case: CO2. therefore, all scientists have to do is study and describe CO2 to prove or disprove man-made global warming. and this is what scientists have already done.

towlie, i appreciate your being of rational mind to discuss this topic without ad-hominem attacks. the truth about CO2 effects on the planet are known but are being suppressed by those with political agendas. there is a natural limit to the heating effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. it is explained in the first few minutes of the film "What is Normal?" -found on youtube.

in summary, 1) scientifically speaking, high concentrations of atmouspheric CO2 CANNOT bring about global warming on its own. and it is the only greenhouse gas man is emmiting in high quantities. 2) the ONLY proof climatologists have for the man-made global warming theory is computer models, which are ran using the presuppositions of the programers (this is good science?) and 3) claiming a concensus believes in something is not good science and people should discontinue stating that.

there is more i could say, but i doubt you will change your mind because of anything i post here. but if you make it a point to stop dismissing the dissenting scientists, and really read their case for rational thought regarding this charged issue, you may come away a bit more skeptical of the case for global warming.

 

[ccodiane]

ClosetCult-
"towlie, i appreciate your being of rational mind to discuss this topic without ad-hominem attacks.""

TowTheLie-
Why? Because it’s bigoted?

Incidentally, this guy’s credentials aren’t that impressive.

the rest of us are a little curious why you’d let us care more about yours than you???

this dude clearly has no idea as to how important it is to perform a study in a scientifically controlled double blind manner.

This dude's a dolt of Michael Moore proportions.

why did you choose to post an argument that clearly doesn’t address the pros? Or do you not know these either?

consist of dolts spewing mindless dogmatism… I was therefore not the least bit surprised to find someone (you) disgorging pure hate

but I really could care less what an obvious bigot thinks.

If you can think of anything even slightly intelligent to say, I’ll address it…

given the pathetic article this thread was started with, I won’t hold my breath.

people trying to debunk GW seem to have very little understanding of science and the method of critical thinking that brought us out of the dark ages.

why are you even pretending to be educated in this debate???”

I didn’t think I could debate him without bringing up the obvious fact that he is clearly stupid.

reveals nothing other than your complete hatred of those who are different than you.

I think he’s douche and a coward

From your obvious bigotry, you are unmistakably a xenophobe.


hahahahaha

 

[closet.cult]

hmmm. well, cc. i didn't attack towlie for his disagreeing with me. and he didn't attack me. rather, his responses seemed intellectually honest, to me. he asked me to discuss the science of it. i can assue him i have probably seen as much science as he has. but i have seen both sides of the argument and think the dissenters make a better case. has he? i dont know.

if he was rude to you, i can understand your feelings.