Originally posted by lazs2
akh... why is it that lefties like yourself are the biggest supporters of the whole man made global er... global... whatever is happening?
It's people like yourself who seem to be confused about what is happening. First you deny that the warming is occuring, then you claim that the warming is exclusively natural (ITS THE SUN STUPID), now you are claiming it's not warming again? Come on man, stop flip-flopping and make your mind up...
so ya got nothing? maybe the scientist mcfarland can help you.. he thinks breathing some co2 will make you stupid.
Unlike you, McFarland knows enough about science to tell the difference between CO (carbon monoxide) and CO2 (carbon dioxide.)
He also has nailed down the whole thing with the precise term of "a little" when referring to co2 and warming... pretty much a back down from the real scientists terms of "significant" and "almost certainly some"
A little CO (that's carbon monoxide) can have a significant effect on your health.
I am dazzled by the math.
Bamboozled more likely.
Ya say there is a consensus of scientists but the 17,000 (give you that) that sign that co2 can't be causing it... they are not a consensus even tho only 2500 signed the UN trash... and most have backed off or said their views were distorted. 17 at least have even sued to get their name off the document.
Most as in nearly all, or at least one more than half, or most as in a handful? Likewise, you should have little trouble in naming the 17 that sued to have their names removed.
I certainly would not site that one.
If you can cite real junk science, I'm sure that I can cite real science.
Show me the math... leave out the lefty emotion and show me the math...
Certainly. Let's see the evidence to support your theory first though. Please be so good as to limit the evidence to just one of the theories.
the contest is not rigged... it simply says that you have to show the numbers... to you it is rigged because it doesn't allow emotion and wishy washy "almost" or significant".
From the rules:
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
Not convinced? Let's rewrite them for the "Laz is a fool challenge:"
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the Laz is fool hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. AKH reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. AKH, at his sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from Laz is a fool entries. All determinations made by AKH are final.
Go on, put your money where your mouth is, or can you only talk the talk?
no one can even give me a defenition of "average global temperature" I don't really think anything even slightly accurate can be done... look for a chart... look how it was made. If you take weather balloon and sat data... it hasn't warmed at all here in the US in two decades...
You don't look very hard, do you. Two minutes with Google.
No scientist that I know of here... has ever even looked at the flawed weather stations they so glibbly use as data.
You're wrong. Easily verified.
It is a scam.
Not another nutjob conspiracy theory, please.
