:lamo now that's funny right there. Trying to frame your straw argument in the way you do here shows exactly what kind of deception people are up against with the religion of AGW zealots.
:lamo now that's funny right there. Trying to frame your straw argument in the way you do here shows exactly what kind of deception people are up against with the religion of AGW zealots.
It's a serious question. What's bad about planting trees? They make oxygen, I breathe oxygen. They remove CO2, which even if that's not a warming thing, less is good. They also look nice. I like trees, what do you have against them?
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
It's obvious that when one of the founders of Green Peace is leaving his own organization because of fanaticism and hypocrisy, there is something wrong with the kool aid those dudes are drinking.
Climate change is a fact -- because the climate will always be changing, but it pretty much stops there. The IPCC is a UN organization pushing for global influence on policy makers and it's absolutely disgusting to see these liars parading as 'do gooders'.
And we should, why?
Which is just WND for liberals.
Spoken like a true socialist.
As a founder of Greenpeace, and the only one with a degree in anything remotely to do with the environment (PhD in Ecology), and as a founder who left the flock... you'd think he would be worth hearing from... regularly.
But... as you so beautifully and succintly reveal, there is no intellectual curiosity from your kind.
How narrow.
Empty denier talking points. The Kochs aren't even having to pay for this support.
As I understand it, the counter-argument to "the data is against human-caused climate change" is that the sources are biased - funded by the oil companies and such.It's funny how much debate over this is when, simply put, the raw data has become "damaging" to the narrative of co2 driven climate change.
It's a red herring issue to distract from real environmental issues .... Run by watermelons; as in people that are green on the outside, but communist red on the inside.
As I understand it, the counter-argument to "the data is against human-caused climate change" is that the sources are biased - funded by the oil companies and such.
Which does hold some weight IMO...not sure how much though.
I just wish there were some at least somewhat politically neutral scientists working on this **** - seems like it's all politicized.This is a myth created by the warmists cult. The truth is that oil companies have hedged bets... Ex; the CRU research lab was bought and paid for by shell oil.
The sources are the ipcc and where they get their data... The raw data itself does not support the hypothesis, so, by the rules of a scientific approach, the hypothesis is wrong as it stands and must be reworked or scrapped and rebuilt.
I just wish there were some at least somewhat politically neutral scientists working on this **** - seems like it's all politicized.
As I understand it, the counter-argument to "the data is against human-caused climate change" is that the sources are biased - funded by the oil companies and such.
Which does hold some weight IMO...not sure how much though.
Might one take your silent exit from the thread to mean finally you figured out the "glitch" either you or your browser was afflicted by? You either do or don't like cookies? Is this still supposed to be a WND article or just a subscription or attachment "glitch" only two posters at DP are suffering from? Probably best for you to moan about "insults" while throwing them around as other posters point out that you are killing the messenger you can't ID correctly. :dohYour link goes to a site requiring a subscription, and your attachment ius invalid. Maybe you should spend less time insulting others.
Not really. You here very little from the organization in general. You guys cherry pick people to listen to only if they match your bias. The fact is he doesn't at all represent the mainstream thinking on the issue. Of course that's assuming you're actually presenting his position.
And you don't? :lamo if everything, and everyone agreed to the extent you try to portray Joe, the public polling would be in favor of it...it's not.
That's faulty logic on your part. Again, only go back to how tobacco companies kept the public from accepting the fact of smoking being harmful. You know that the public can be just as wrong as any individual. And if you remember, I even gave you an article on this to read.
Well, I'm on the road, so reading lengthy articles for me is difficult. But, I would point out that disagreeing with you is not endemic of any faulty logic, that's just how you rather lazily try to stifle disagreement.
Moderator's Warning: |
Not each other, not other publications, that is the topic. Now return to that or be punted from the thread or receive points or possibly both. |
Obviously there's a link.It's not the only argument. But it's odd you can't see the obvious link between business money and the hacks they hire.
Obviously there's a link.
Just as obviously, scientists who study climate change have a vested interest in continuing their studies and finding supporting evidence - that's where THEIR money comes from.
I really don't trust any of em completely, especially on such a politicized issue. None appear impartial to me.
Ah, but I'm lazy, and tossing them all out the window is easy.No where near as vested as science working directly for companies. It really doesn't work the way you suggest.
Ah, but I'm lazy, and tossing them all out the window is easy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?