Conservative White Males Climate Skeptics
- Thread starter grainfedpraiboy
- Start date
why would quoting a study author(s) summary finding statement from a study abstract be any different from quoting from a related article that makes direct reference to the same study findings? So..... you'll accept a journalist's interpreted understanding of a study in a referenced article... but you won't accept summary statement findings from the study author(s), directly from the study itself?
I suppose quoting then discussing the quote' strengths and weaknesses is just blowing white conservative hot air in some worlds?
Any other way is like being those whack jobs who quote Bible verses as indisputable fact.
Any other way is like being those whack jobs who quote Bible verses as indisputable fact.
No it hasn't.
Here's your comment. Please note all your emphasis.
Here's my question.
Here's your absurd, supposed answer...
Which does not in any way answer the question.
I can see why you wouldn't be able to, or want to if you could. But you can just as easily admit that, instead of being dishonest. It does nothing but expose you for what you are.
Pretty much what I figured.
Thanks for proving me right. I like when you take all the work out of it.
no - in keeping with your nattering junkyard-dog act, why don't you answer my question? I answered yours... if it's not to your satisfaction, tough titty! For no other reason than to play silly-buggar, you're supposedly ticked because you aren't in the study's demographic group categorization of white/male/conservative... yet you hold the same positions as the categorized group. You really, really, really must want into that demographic makeup, hey? :lol:
It's good when you lot admit defeat. Now finally you can go on BBC, CNN and other media outlets and admit to everybody that you've been lying all this time and give us all the apology that we deserve.
Oh, and we want you all to scrap your silly, useless and expensive windmills that are blighting our landscapes and your green levies which are driving up our energy bills.
No. There are scientists who are of the belief that a warming atmosphere - it had been warming naturally since the 19th Century as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age but is now naturally cooling again and, I believe, will carry on cooling - led to an increase of CO2, rather than an increase of CO2 leading to global warming.
The Global Warmists have been looking at graphs and seeing a correlation between increasing temperature and increasing CO2 and then suddenly came to the conclusion that an increase in CO2 leads to a warming atmosphere. Yet I, and many others, are now sure that it's the other way round - that a naturally warming atmosphere (not man-made) led to an increase in CO2.
The first sentence will happen when pigs fly. The second will happen when pigs fly in hell surrounded by snowballs. Just saying.
Slow roast, with gravy and mashed taters.
Oh he'll tell you why you're wrong that he's wrong. Then he'll blame all those lefties that conspire against him. Then he'll you to vote UKIP. He just won't learn to read or apologize, that's all, lol.
Yeah? Have you got any proof of that? The trouble with you Global Warmists is that you dismiss everybody who disagrees with your religion as having "no credibility" even if they know more about how the atmosphere works and have more qualifications in the subject that most Global Warmists do.
No. You listen to me. I'm going to show you this again:
What the BBC and its fellow Warmists predicted in 2007:
Now, I want you to study the above graphic very carefully and answer this very simple question:
Were the BBC and the Warmists right in their prediction, or were they proven massively wrong?
Now just answer that question. I'm sure even the hugely limited brainpower of the average gullible Warmist simpleton could answer such a question of stunning simplicity.
Instead of talking the Warmist Brigade's equivalent of management speak, I want you to answer this question:
You Warmists, as so doom-ladenly yet gleefully reported by the BBC back in 2007, predicted that the Arctic would be completely ice-free by 2013. So, tell me this, did your doom-laden prediction come to pass or were you all (as you so often are) proven to be embarrasingly and spectacularly wrong on a massive, comet-sized scale?
And if you do admit you Warmists were wrong (and I believe you were), when are you going to apologise?
I think it's worth from time to time showing you Warmists REALITY, the comments of the ordinary man in the street, rather than having your mind completely filled with junk from within the Warmist bubble.
A natural greenhouse effect exists, but a man-made greenhouse effect most certainly doesn't.
The Earth does warm naturally from time to time, you know. Ice Ages end because the Earth naturally warms up.
There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past - the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation. The earliest of those, the Huronian, ended 2.1 billion years ago. Now, tell me this, did human activity cause the rise in the Earth's temperature to cause the end of that ice age or was the rise in temperature completely natural?
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas which was first formed billions of years ago and many are now of the belief that the naturally warming Earth at the end of the Little Ice Age caused an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
It now seems increasingly likely that you Global Warmists have got evrything ar*e about t*t. A warming atmosphere leads to more CO2, not vice versa.
Why don't YOU apologise?
Why don't you Wamrists apologise for littering our landscapes with useless windmills and WE have to pay for and for gretaly increasing our energy bills for putting green taxes on them, all to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
It's not you Warmists who deserve an apology. It's us.
Vote Ukip.
Last edited:
Well that's the last time I stand for you by offering counter point.
Did you miss the part about geothermal vents spewing raw CO2?
Fify