So your argument now seems to boil down to, since we don't yet, although who knows, how the universe was started we can't do anything about GW because we don't know all there is to know about GW.Are you saying the universe wasnt created at some point (whether intelligently or not)??
Off topic.Are you saying the universe wasnt created at some point (whether intelligently or not)??
I didnt say any of that. And you didnt answer my questionSo your argument now seems to boil down to, since we don't yet, although who knows, how the universe was started we can't do anything about GW because we don't know all there is to know about GW
Have you considered that even 97% of the scientists can be completely wrong??Off topic.
But we have established that you and moviefan both can't tell the difference between creationism and science, can't understand the science, can't distinguish between lobbyists and researchers and yet still think you're smarter then 97% of climatologists
You may not have said it outright but you reject the science of the vast majority because you don't like what they say....
Another fabrication. I said no such thing.
I said the IPCC is driven by a political agenda.
Whether or not you accept the idea that the political agenda drives the IPCC (many do, as I showed you in post 598), there is no doubt that the political agenda plays a dominant role. Researchers who have worked on the IPCC report confirmed that, and the Nobel Institute believes it, as well.....
And god said unto Moses, let there be light and lets make it look like there's global warming when there's not.I dunno, tell me who (or what) created the entire universe??
Can you answer me that??
Absolutely possible. It's happened before....
Have you considered that even 97% of the scientists can be completely wrong??
Or at the very least that maybe they overestimated global warming??
Not sure what you're trying to imply here, but if you think I'm religious I can assure you I'm notAnd god said unto Moses, let there be light and lets make it look like there's global warming when there's not
And thats where we fundamentally disagree. You guys think earth is heating up fast, I call complete bullshit on that. And Climategate is a good starting point, they fudged the data and now we can't trust them anymoreAbsolutely possible. It's happened before.
For them to be considered wrong though, we need evidence which refutes them. Until then, the only valid scientific conclusion is that we are driving global warming at a much faster than natural rate
The chances that so many scientists who have worked for so many years could be so wrong are ridiculously small.Have you considered that even 97% of the scientists can be completely wrong??
Or at the very least that maybe they overestimated global warming??
The stolen emails were investigated 8 times and each time they agreed there was no incriminating data or emails.And thats where we fundamentally disagree. You guys think earth is heating up fast, I call complete bullshit on that. And Climategate is a good starting point, they fudged the data and now we can't trust them anymore
Ostrich, head, sand. I get it....
And thats where we fundamentally disagree. You guys think earth is heating up fast, I call complete bullshit on that.
That "investigation" was not objective at all. They were all trying to cover their assesThe stolen emails were investigated 8 times and each time they agreed there was no incriminating data or emails.
The one good thing that came of that is that the data is now freely available to all, there is nothing hidden
Nope. I wanna know the truth, and right now I'm not buying what they're sellingOstrich, head, sand. I get it.
I did answer it, but you just didn't like the answer.I didn't say any of that. And you didn't answer my question
Have you considered that even 97% of the scientists can be completely wrong??
Or at the very least that maybe they overestimated global warming??
Not sure what you're trying to imply here, but if you think I'm religious I can assure you I'm not
And thats where we fundamentally disagree. You guys think earth is heating up fast, I call complete bullshit on that. And Climategate is a good starting point, they fudged the data and now we can't trust them anymore
And on which Heartland Institute funded site did you read that bullshit?That "investigation" was not objective at all. They were all trying to cover their asses
That would mean AK would have to sit still and pay attention for an hour, good luck with that.And god said unto Moses, let there be light and lets make it look like there's global warming when there's not.
At least your anti-science viewpoint isn't constrained to climate.
As for big bang evidence, you might start by looking at CMB radiation. The new Cosmos premiered last night. Maybe watching that would help too.
Yup, its called "common sense" groggy. When you get older you'll learn to see through people's bullshit better.And on which Heartland Institute funded site did you read that bullshit?
Why would you claim that 8 investigations are not valid, most of those by government bodies?
Do you have any real claims to backup such a blatantly bullshit claim?
So when you say 'common sense' you are relying on the same line of thinking that equates creationism with science, right?Yup, its called "common sense" groggy. When you get older you'll learn to see through people's bullshit better.
The explanations that investigation gave for Climategate were laughable at best
Sounds like you're still butthurt you fell for my obfuscating trick a few days ago.So when you say 'common sense' you are relying on the same line of thinking that equates creationism with science, right?
I'll take it that you have no evidence or basis other then something your read from some lobbyists site, which you can't recall or understand.
In other words, you have nothing to back up your statement
No, just realized I have to up my bullshit detector when talking with you.Sounds like you're still butthurt you fell for my obfuscating trick a few days ago.
