Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Ross Archer wrote: On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote: Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!! from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon. While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of it. The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. No, it's not! None of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more controversial than most generally-accepted theories. Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice. This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced. Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle. So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place. Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys. This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar theories that are not accepted. Al is mentally ill. I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as 20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a mile or so thick. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 13, 12:40 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote: On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote: Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!! from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon. While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of it. The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. No, it's not! None of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more controversial than most generally-accepted theories. Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice. This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced. Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle. So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place. Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys. This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar theories that are not accepted. Al is mentally ill. I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as 20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a mile or so thick. Where do you get your information? It may be worth seeking out higher quality sources, because even trying to pass off how science works as a primarily political matter looks ridiculous to anyone who has had any experience in the sciences. The ONE unpardonable sin in science (besides outright fraud) is to jump to unwarranted conclusions because of political pressure. No reputable scientist or scientific body is going to make rash unsupported statements about global warming being a scientific consensus unless it really is. Geeze, you can't really buy into that desperate "liberal scientific conspiracy" crap? What you call liberal bias is actually the fact that the facts disagree with your ideology, because your ideology is not based in reality. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Ross Archer wrote: On Oct 13, 12:40 am, dxAce wrote: Ross Archer wrote: On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote: Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!! from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon. While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of it. The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. No, it's not! None of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more controversial than most generally-accepted theories. Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice. This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced. Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle. So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place. Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys. This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar theories that are not accepted. Al is mentally ill. I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as 20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a mile or so thick. Where do you get your information? It may be worth seeking out higher quality sources, because even trying to pass off how science works as a primarily political matter looks ridiculous to anyone who has had any experience in the sciences. The ONE unpardonable sin in science (besides outright fraud) is to jump to unwarranted conclusions because of political pressure. No reputable scientist or scientific body is going to make rash unsupported statements about global warming being a scientific consensus unless it really is. Geeze, you can't really buy into that desperate "liberal scientific conspiracy" crap? What you call liberal bias is actually the fact that the facts disagree with your ideology, because your ideology is not based in reality. Ah, but it is! |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ross Archer" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 13, 12:40 am, dxAce wrote: Ross Archer wrote: On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote: Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!! from CNN -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon. While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of it. The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. No, it's not! None of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more controversial than most generally-accepted theories. Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice. This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced. Nah! It's a normally occuring cycle. So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place. Visionary? He's a huxter trying to make a buck with whacko theorys. This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar theories that are not accepted. Al is mentally ill. I'm all in favour of global warming! One must remember that as recently as 20,000 years ago, where I'm sitting here in Michigan there was a sheet of ice a mile or so thick. Where do you get your information? It may be worth seeking out higher quality sources, because even trying to pass off how science works as a primarily political matter looks ridiculous to anyone who has had any experience in the sciences. The ONE unpardonable sin in science (besides outright fraud) is to jump to unwarranted conclusions because of political pressure. No reputable scientist or scientific body is going to make rash unsupported statements about global warming being a scientific consensus unless it really is. Geeze, you can't really buy into that desperate "liberal scientific conspiracy" crap? What you call liberal bias is actually the fact that the facts disagree with your ideology, because your ideology is not based in reality. How many scientists compared to politicians are there in the IPCC? There is plenty of peer reviewed science stating AGW is bunk. The current "consensus" is nothing more than mob mentality. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ozone Layer Be Damned. I will not Douche my Toxic Vagina. | General | |||
Something Around Here to Enjoy Besides the Damned Code Test War | Policy |