Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Take your time . On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Sam wrote: > Larry, I think the last guy slapped you too hard. > > Answer the question you keep avoiding: How many of those so called > studies, since many of them are news stories, support AGC > > > To argue woth a person who has renounced th

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

"The convincing proof you have is based on lies. The models were all wrong, the hockey stick graph was faked and they admit there is no science to back up the claim warming is caused by man or that there is even warming anymore." At this point, it takes more faith to believe in man made global wa

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Because the folks that wrote the report that you believe as of AGC admitted they were wrong. The IPCC is a political document not a scientific document and it's flawed. The convincing proof you have is based on lies. The models were all wrong, the hockey stick graph was faked and they admit there

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

I did not arrive at a scientific consensus, the scientific community arrived at that consensus. I arrived at the decision to agree with their conclusions. I read a few of the studies, read some of the journal articles written by those who conducted the studies, listened to speeches by scientists

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Larry, I think the last guy slapped you too hard. Answer the question you keep avoiding: How many of those so called studies, since many of them are news stories, support AGC To argue woth a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine .

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

13926 studies in peer reviewed scientific journals vs 24. That's rather conclusive. As I've said before to you Sam if you've been slapped in the face 10 different ways, its a pretty good guess that you've been slapped. Let me put it this way: In this case you've been slapped in the face 13926 ti

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

How can you believe in Science? Its a methodology, a technique, a way of thinking. It is despite of not because of belief. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:00 AM, GMoney wrote: > > Yes it is. > > I don't really care that Sam (or anyone else not in a position to affect > policy) wants to hold an opini

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

I meant to say you're Speed typing... . On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Sam wrote: > If you don't think your part of a Al Gores religion than just prove it. > Show me how you arrived at a scientific consensus that man causes global > warming. > > . > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:00 AM, GMone

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

If you don't think your part of a Al Gores religion than just prove it. Show me how you arrived at a scientific consensus that man causes global warming. . On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:00 AM, GMoney wrote: > > Yes it is. > > I don't really care that Sam (or anyone else not in a position to affec

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Yes it is. I don't really care that Sam (or anyone else not in a position to affect policy) wants to hold an opinion that is contrary to current scientific findings. They have that right, and they can surely argue their position. Science has been wrong. But I object to being labeled a "believer

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

that is the essence of science. Provide multiple reliable and demonstrable data across different studies that contradict the theory then the theory is rejected. 13926 studies plus is a lot of studies to overcome. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, GMoney wrote: > > Cam and I have sided with the

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

I didn't think i was hostile to anyone..? I'm a pretty mellow fellow, for the most part. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Sam wrote: > > So wait, your hostile to "skeptics" too? > > That's not good. > > . > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, GMoney wrote: > > > > > Cam and I have sided

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

So wait, your hostile to "skeptics" too? That's not good. . On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, GMoney wrote: > > Cam and I have sided with the scientific consensus, as we understand it. > Larry has no bearing on our feelings re: Global Warming. > > Present us proof that our understanding of th

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Cameron Childress wrote: > I can get behind this description of my position. However, I don't expect > that proof to become available in general anytime in the very near future. > And if it does, I'm likely to find out about it outside of Sam's > propaganda. > Sc

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, GMoney wrote: > Cam and I have sided with the scientific consensus, as we understand it. > Larry has no bearing on our feelings re: Global Warming. > > Present us proof that our understanding of the current scientific > consensus is wrong, and we'll happily and hu

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Cam and I have sided with the scientific consensus, as we understand it. Larry has no bearing on our feelings re: Global Warming. Present us proof that our understanding of the current scientific consensus is wrong, and we'll happily and humbly agree with you. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM, C

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Yawn. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Sam wrote: > Why Cam? Did I hurt your feelings pointing out how silly you've been all > these years backing Al Gore and Larry's flawed theories? > > When you side with Larry as often as you do you really need to do some > self evaluation of who the troll i

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Why Cam? Did I hurt your feelings pointing out how silly you've been all these years backing Al Gore and Larry's flawed theories? When you side with Larry as often as you do you really need to do some self evaluation of who the troll is before labeling others. You really have moved to extreme lef

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Its been a hobby of mine, pissing off the more rigid minded conservatives. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Cameron Childress wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > > It goes both ways Cam - I think I get more of an emotional response out > > of him. > > > That is

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

I didn't debunk, I asked if I really had to waste my time with something even a child can see as a flawed argument http://search.espn.go.com/kieran-mulvaney/ Kieran Mulvaney Boxing | Heavy Hitting Boxing Podcast

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > It goes both ways Cam - I think I get more of an emotional response out > of him. That is a strange use of time. -Cameron ... ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

It goes both ways Cam - I think I get more of an emotional response out of him. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Cameron Childress wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > > Sam rarely reads something if it goes against his ideology > > > > Sam has been successfully

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > Sam rarely reads something if it goes against his ideology > Sam has been successfully trolling you for years now. It's not about reading anything, it's about him getting a rise out of you. -Cameron .. ~

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

correction Sam rarely reads something if it goes against his ideology. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > Sam does read if the item in question goes against his ideological biases > haven't you noticed? > > I think that is a fundamental difference between those on the left

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

Sam does read if the item in question goes against his ideological biases haven't you noticed? I think that is a fundamental difference between those on the left and right wings. Those on the left at least can handle nuanced logic that requires thinking. http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

As usual, you aren't debunking, simply insulting. If you actually have any proof the argument is poor, present it. And boxing reporter? Where did you come up with that? On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Sam wrote: > > That's your rebuttal? A boxing reporter disagreeing in an article for a >

Re: for the wing nut climate change deniers

That's your rebuttal? A boxing reporter disagreeing in an article for a cable channel? Do I really need to waste time pointing out how poor his argument is? . On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > > http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/ocean-holds-answer-reduced-warmin

for the wing nut climate change deniers

http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/ocean-holds-answer-reduced-warming-130411.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1 ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anth