Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
107 replies to this topic

#97 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:20 AM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

#98 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:34 AM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming






The Senator poses a good question- what would the weather channel's ratings be without the threat of global warming? And I'm willing to bet scientists aren't even considering the effect of Mars wobbles on Earth's climate

#99 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:11 AM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming


Decorum ain't cheap!

#100 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,390
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming


"If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum."

Reading... the more you know

#101 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,561
  • Reputation: 3,628
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

Posted Image

#102 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:22 PM

"If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum."

Reading... the more you know


i don't question their motives because of who funds their poo science. i question their poo science. it's you deniers who always end up suggesting that the, what, 99% of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is in fact a problem are just bought and paid for by the big "green" industry

#103 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,390
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:30 PM

i don't question their motives because of who funds their poo science. i question their poo science. it's you deniers who always end up suggesting that the, what, 99% of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is in fact a problem are just bought and paid for by the big "green" industry


Your post immediately before this says you question the science because of who funds it.

As usual... fail supreme. The reason you bring nothing of substance to the table is because you have nothing... unlike thatlookseasy

#104 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

dude i'm p sure i already shut you down in another thread like a month ago so let's not say things we can't take back

anyway i said that they were investing in bad science; i didn't say that the science was bad because they were investing in it. however i will pull back on that one a little bit because i seem to remember a story about one of the koch brothers investing in some climate study that ended up actually being consistent with man made climate change so they obviously don't exclusively invest in bad science

#105 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,390
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:38 PM

dude i'm p sure i already shut you down in another thread like a month ago so let's not say things we can't take back

anyway i said that they were investing in bad science; i didn't say that the science was bad because they were investing in it. however i will pull back on that one a little bit because i seem to remember a story about one of the koch brothers investing in some climate study that ended up actually being consistent with man made climate change so they obviously don't exclusively invest in bad science


feel free to drop by when you want to post some pictures/drive-by comments that contribute nothing to the conversation

#106 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:45 PM

http://archive.scien...imate/journals/

http://www.skeptical...hp?f=percentage

here, i'm contributing things that you'll never actually accept anyway because you cling to climate change skepticism with the same religious fervor as evolution skeptics

#107 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,390
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

http://archive.scien...imate/journals/

http://www.skeptical...hp?f=percentage

here, i'm contributing things that you'll never actually accept anyway because you cling to climate change skepticism with the same religious fervor as evolution skeptics


What's sad is that 2 decades from now when you're clinging to the next big fad, you'll look back at these ignorant people that were fools enough to believe in anthropogenically caused global warming with disdain.

http://www.c3headlin...tionsforecasts/

#108 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,117
  • Reputation: 184
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:58 PM

What a crappy worthless thread that's gone on for a week plus ... I mean, really.