Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30923 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

Sensible

Walled Lake, MI

#32163 May 23, 2015
What is it exactly your trying to defend? If 98 of 100 scientist tell you heroin is bad for you and the 2 out of 100 who say "the science is still out" work for the drug dealer, why would you believe them? The "deniers" plant their flag from an emotional not logical stand point. Do you believe gravity is a hoax? No it's not different.
Have you ever noticed that the people making money off the argument that the Earth is flat, start off with "I'm not a scientist" which is supposed to absolve them of any responsibility to say any ignorant deceptive thing that they want. I'm not a scientist but 2 and 2 is 5. Be emotional. Look for things to try to fit your argument. Make sure your turn a blind eye to FACTS!
The Green Watch Dog

Oklahoma City, OK

#32164 May 23, 2015
I know my facts as I have seen first hand the aircraft with the chemicals
Used to spray.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#32165 May 24, 2015
The Green Watch Dog wrote:
I know my facts as I have seen first hand the aircraft with the chemicals
Used to spray.
What specific chemicals are they using?
The Geen Watch Dog

Oklahoma City, OK

#32166 May 24, 2015
It's a confidential state of formula to release that information. The chemicals used varies according to a number of environmental, regional, and other factors. A Popular ingredient that has been used is aluminum sulfate.It is relatively inexpensive and readily available.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#32167 May 24, 2015
The Geen Watch Dog wrote:
It's a confidential state of formula to release that information.
Say what, in English?
The Geen Watch Dog wrote:
The chemicals used varies according to a number of environmental, regional, and other factors.
So where did you glean this dubious information?
The Geen Watch Dog wrote:
A Popular ingredient that has been used is aluminum sulfate.It is relatively inexpensive and readily available.
And not considered very toxic, as it has been widely used in food products.

BTW, what a "Geen Watch Dog?"
IBdaMann

Ashburn, VA

#32168 May 24, 2015
Sensible wrote:
What is it exactly your trying to defend? If 98 of 100 scientist tell you heroin is bad for you and the 2 out of 100 who say "the science is still out" work for the drug dealer, why would you believe them? The "deniers" plant their flag from an emotional not logical stand point. Do you believe gravity is a hoax? No it's not different.
What is it you are trying to support? If 100 out of 100 scientists tell you to your face that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics cannot be violated, but 100 out of 100 warmazombies tell you that, oh yeah, CO2 definitely creates thermal energy without performing any additional work, in direct violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, who are you going to believe?

If warmazombies need their religion, the opiate of those masses, to get their fix just like heroin addicts in withdrawal, are you going to fall for the line "you should get on board and try some too!"
Sensible wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people making money off the argument that the Earth is flat, start off with "I'm not a scientist" which is supposed to absolve them of any responsibility to say any ignorant deceptive thing that they want.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I GREATELY appreciate you pointing this out. Global Warming is a religion that appeals to the scientifically illiterate. They have no concept of science and are forced to EVADE all discussion of science when asked to support their WACKY and ABSURD claims of Global Warming miracles.
IBdaMann

Ashburn, VA

#32169 May 24, 2015
"GREATLY"...not "GREATELY." I can't blame autocorrect for that one.
G Bush

Farmington, NM

#32170 May 29, 2015
Sensible wrote:
What is it exactly your trying to defend? If 98 of 100 scientist tell you heroin is bad for you and the 2 out of 100 who say "the science is still out" work for the drug dealer, why would you believe them? The "deniers" plant their flag from an emotional not logical stand point. Do you believe gravity is a hoax? No it's not different.
Have you ever noticed that the people making money off the argument that the Earth is flat, start off with "I'm not a scientist" which is supposed to absolve them of any responsibility to say any ignorant deceptive thing that they want. I'm not a scientist but 2 and 2 is 5. Be emotional. Look for things to try to fit your argument. Make sure your turn a blind eye to FACTS!
What do you mean the earth is not flat ?
XandO

Phoenix, AZ

#32171 May 29, 2015
G Bush wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean the earth is not flat ?
If you're in Kansas, it is.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32172 May 29, 2015
XandO wrote:
If you're in Kansas, it is.
I found nice rolling hills in Kansas. Now, finding people who are under 60 years of age...... now that is harder. OK, I went by a school & saw some kids. By that time I was a quarter of the way through Kansas.
IBdaMann

Ashburn, VA

#32173 May 29, 2015
Otis wrote:
It's not surprising that the folks yapping about not believing there is a phenomenon of global warming never seem to have any data to back up their doubt. Other than the schoolyard science of "look, it's snowing today". There is a bit more to the science than a day of rain or a season of snow. Rising sea levels, shrinking polar caps, changing weather patterns, etc. I don't understand why these yappers can't separate their hatred of a particular political group with the cold, hard facts of science. Does it make sense to not try and limit greenhouse gases and take the gamble that our future generations will have to figure it out at much greater expense and harm? The yappers need to leave the science to scientists even with the few miscreants who screwed up so badly in England. Or come up with some solid science that refutes the current science.
What science have you reviewed and understand that convinced you that Global Warming is real and is active in our lives?

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#32175 Jul 3, 2015
Truth Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
They do not... That's a Fraudulent claim made by a guy making his living duping the masses... John Cook was flat out caught rigging the study that number is taken from...

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#32176 Jul 3, 2015
IBdaMann wrote:
<quoted text>
What science have you reviewed and understand that convinced you that Global Warming is real and is active in our lives?
I would bet none... I would also bet he has never read a scientific paper and only has heard the opinions of those that have read or written such papers and has no idea of the bias and income basis of those he Believes...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32177 Jul 3, 2015
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
They do not... That's a Fraudulent claim made by a guy making his living duping the masses... John Cook was flat out caught rigging the study that number is taken from...
I know, it was only 96%.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#32178 Jul 3, 2015
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, it was only 96%.
No you do not know...

Actually it's not... There are only two studies on the issue and the Cook paper has been discredited over and over and any reader that wants to seek the Many noted scientists that have written about it being Bunk can do so at will...... of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. Then he cherry picked only the 64 to use as his study numbers....

The second study by Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 use a questionnaire with two questions
and polled 10,257 Earth scientists ... of which only 3,146 even replied.... Of those they cherry picked only 79 to use as a baseline... of those they found 76 answered Yes to both questions...

I can say that for every Individual you can point to that says AGW is fact I can supply equal numbers that say it's Bunk...

Also note that Climatology is not one of the Sciences in the first place... At best it is called a Soft Science in that it is not required to abide by the Scientific Method to formulate theory...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32179 Jul 3, 2015
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
No you do not know...
Actually it's not... There are only two studies on the issue and the Cook paper has been discredited over and over and any reader that wants to seek the Many noted scientists that have written about it being Bunk can do so at will...... of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. Then he cherry picked only the 64 to use as his study numbers....
The second study by Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 use a questionnaire with two questions
and polled 10,257 Earth scientists ... of which only 3,146 even replied.... Of those they cherry picked only 79 to use as a baseline... of those they found 76 answered Yes to both questions...
I can say that for every Individual you can point to that says AGW is fact I can supply equal numbers that say it's Bunk...
Also note that Climatology is not one of the Sciences in the first place... At best it is called a Soft Science in that it is not required to abide by the Scientific Method to formulate theory...
Actually, you are wrong. But I have come to expect nothing else from you. All the great scientific academies throughout the entire world subscribe to AGW. How many of the learned scientific institutions disavow AGW?

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#32180 Jul 3, 2015
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you are wrong. But I have come to expect nothing else from you. All the great scientific academies throughout the entire world subscribe to AGW. How many of the learned scientific institutions disavow AGW?
How many of those that do make their living and enjoy free air plane trips to Cancun and other exotic places to be fed fine cheese and wines for their support for the political effort... But since you speak of groups there is not a single group or org you can come up with where the membership is in total agreement with the leadership or the positions the leadership take... Such as the 50 Nasa scientists that objected to it's positions on AGW or the Org of Concerned Scientists, Green Peace or even the IPCC where a noted portion of their membership totally disagree with the positions of the Political Based leaderships...

But of course you are just falling back on the Consensus construct that is as Unscientific as you can get ..

But as you say you think I'm wrong so give me your specific reasoning (without resorting to authority) where I'm wrong in what I stated...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#32181 Jul 4, 2015
bozo wrote:
I know, it was only 96%.
Produce a citation for your sarcasm?!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32182 Jul 4, 2015
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Produce a citation for your sarcasm?!
;)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32183 Jul 4, 2015
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
How many of those that do make their living and enjoy free air plane trips to Cancun and other exotic places to be fed fine cheese and wines for their support for the political effort... But since you speak of groups there is not a single group or org you can come up with where the membership is in total agreement with the leadership or the positions the leadership take... Such as the 50 Nasa scientists that objected to it's positions on AGW or the Org of Concerned Scientists, Green Peace or even the IPCC where a noted portion of their membership totally disagree with the positions of the Political Based leaderships...
But of course you are just falling back on the Consensus construct that is as Unscientific as you can get ..
But as you say you think I'm wrong so give me your specific reasoning (without resorting to authority) where I'm wrong in what I stated...
Void argument. Nothing but RW conjecture to discredit science because it gets in the way of ideology.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Aura Mytha 221,798
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Joy 1,564,561
News By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans prefer Obamacare ... 2 min Retired SOF 310
News 'Let Obamacare fail,' Trump says after GOP plan... 5 min bottlecap 15
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 6 min Happy Lesbo 16,081
News Donald Trump's lawyers seek to undercut Mueller... 8 min Retribution 35
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min Barry Soetoro 279,558
News How should an angry liberal celebrate the Fourt... 13 min Retribution 488
More from around the web