tell me it isn't so......the sun??

[slammin.e28]

I'll just leave this here:

[nrubenstein]

Talking to GW believers is like trying to prove to a Scientologist that Hubbard was never injured during WWII (even though his records can be found on line)...impossible because "it can't be".



WOW, are they actually only calling it a theory...take note IPCC....

Talking to climate change deniers is impossible because they believe that the slightest shred of mitigating evidence/theory/made up crap that purports to support their own opinion disproves EVERYTHING. This makes it impossible to have a rational conversation.

[gwb72tii]

***** WARNING HYPOCRACY AHEAD *****

follow the money
and who has it?

"No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore. According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, just one of the "green" companies in which Gore has invested has received over half a billion dollars in subsidies from the Energy Department."

"According to the Science & Public Policy Institute, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid and tax breaks.

Compare that with, say, Exxon-Mobil Corp., which is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics."



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...ry-Vs-Gore.htm

[herbivor]

***** WARNING HYPOCRACY AHEAD *****

follow the money
and who has it?

"No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore. According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, just one of the "green" companies in which Gore has invested has received over half a billion dollars in subsidies from the Energy Department."

"According to the Science & Public Policy Institute, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid and tax breaks.

Compare that with, say, Exxon-Mobil Corp., which is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics."



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...ry-Vs-Gore.htm

I'd invest $79 billion to try and solve a global problem based on sound science over $23 million on propaganda to refute sound science any day. Sounds like Exxon's 23 million was a good investment on their part however, because there are plenty of people like you believing the propaganda. If you want to follow the money, do a little research on the people you site to support your theory and see how they get paid.

[Vedubin01]

this thread makes me want to pour my used motor oil down the storm drains!

[slammin.e28]

this thread makes me want to pour my used motor oil down the storm drains!

Just change it in a self serve car wash over night.

I live in a rural area. I use used motor oil to kill weeds that grow in my gravel driveway.

Problem?

[z31maniac]

Talking to climate change deniers is impossible because they believe that the slightest shred of mitigating evidence/theory/made up crap that purports to support their own opinion disproves EVERYTHING. This makes it impossible to have a rational conversation.

It's apparent by your sig, that you live by your convictons on AGW.

[gwb72tii]

I'd invest $79 billion to try and solve a global problem based on sound science over $23 million on propaganda to refute sound science any day. Sounds like Exxon's 23 million was a good investment on their part however, because there are plenty of people like you believing the propaganda. If you want to follow the money, do a little research on the people you site to support your theory and see how they get paid.

ok, let me ask you then

what government funded scientist would get funding trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis?

[herbivor]

ok, let me ask you then

what government funded scientist would get funding trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis?

All of them if you know how scientists work. All credible scientists try to disprove theories. That's what the scientific process is, a constant attempt to disprove theories, not prove them. When the research findings cannot disprove them, then they tend to agree with the theory even though they will try and continue to disprove it. It's pretty obvious you have limited exposure to the scientific community or information. I'm not trying to sound smug, but you are making assumptions about scientists and their research based on the distorted media filter you tend to rely on, rather than direct dealing with the science or research itself.
It's like saying you know everything about E30's from some pictures and what your friends tell you about them without owning, driving, or working on one yourself.

[InuFaye]

Just change it in a self serve car wash over night.

I live in a rural area. I use used motor oil to kill weeds that grow in my gravel driveway.

Problem?

yes. brb calling epa.

[slammin.e28]

yes. brb calling epa.

I'm Jewish. I own the EPA, dawg.

[InuFaye]

I'm Jewish. I own the fed, dawg.

fixed for accuracy.

[z31maniac]

All of them if you know how scientists work. All credible scientists try to disprove theories. That's what the scientific process is, a constant attempt to disprove theories, not prove them. When the research findings cannot disprove them, then they tend to agree with the theory even though they will try and continue to disprove it. It's pretty obvious you have limited exposure to the scientific community or information. I'm not trying to sound smug, but you are making assumptions about scientists and their research based on the distorted media filter you tend to rely on, rather than direct dealing with the science or research itself.
It's like saying you know everything about E30's from some pictures and what your friends tell you about them without owning, driving, or working on one yourself.

Credible scientists don't try to disprove theories.

The develop hypothesis' to attempt to explain what is going on around them. They then develop experiments to test the aforementioned hypothesis.

If a someone develops a test with the sole purpose of trying to disprove a theory, there bias is clear, which does not fit in with the scientific method.

[slammin.e28]

fixed for accuracy.

That too. Just to clear some things up, just because I'm Jewish, doesn't mean I'm Hebrew. I lean more towards the Pastafarian persuasion, but by blood I own every one of you.

[herbivor]

Credible scientists don't try to disprove theories.

The develop hypothesis' to attempt to explain what is going on around them. They then develop experiments to test the aforementioned hypothesis.

If a someone develops a test with the sole purpose of trying to disprove a theory, there bias is clear, which does not fit in with the scientific method.

I think this is what I was trying to imply:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

And another quote from Einstein that sums up my position:

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
Albert Einstein