 |
|
  PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}. Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
8. Ottobre 2011, 18:29:12  Global warming is a reality. Global climate change, the better words for global warming, is a indisputable fact. Right? 8. Ottobre 2011, 18:37:13 Argomento: Re: gogul: Honest would be to admit the problems in mostly poorer countries, climate change is causing. We will suffer the problems anyway and should face them honestly. For the sake of our .. hmmm .. soul, we should overcome national fence thinking. Get over your nationalism, the resulting populism is a sick stupidity, while we do have the means to address the problems globaly. 8. Ottobre 2011, 18:39:07 Argomento: Re:  gogul: Global warming/Climate change is junk science. Period.  8. Ottobre 2011, 18:46:54 Argomento: Re: Artful Dodger: Sinking islands are not "junk science". Melting water reservoirs are not junk science. Shifting seasons are not junk science to farmers. Spread of desert is not junk science. 8. Ottobre 2011, 19:07:26 Argomento: Re: gogul: We've seen these things before in the history of the world. Climate changes. Normal cycyle. Nothing new. Man made? That's where the junk science comes in. 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:00:07 Argomento: Re:Man made? That's where the junk science comes in. Artful Dodger: All Natural..... and you personally can prove this despite 97% of "publishing Climatologists" say you are wrong? Can you explain how you got to be such an expert, regarding the fact that "You're just a voice on a game site." 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:01:06 Argomento: Re:Man made? That's where the junk science comes in. (V): I'm not a voice on a game site. That's you.  8. Ottobre 2011, 20:05:14 Argomento: Re:Man made? That's where the junk science comes in. Artful Dodger: So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:13:44 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? (V): You are asking someone to stay on point???  8. Ottobre 2011, 20:16:37 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? Artful Dodger: You say you keep on subject... so do it. ...can you personally prove the 97% of "publishing Climatologists" that say your opinion is wrong... wrong? 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:20:31 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? Artful Dodger: can you prove they are right???  8. Ottobre 2011, 20:30:41 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? Artful Dodger: I know enough of chemistry to know that you cannot pollute or add to a closed environment (as in the atmosphere is covered by a vacuum) ....and have no effect. Do you? 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:34:22 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? (V): yes I do. Thanks for asking. 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:45:58 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? Artful Dodger: can you prove the 97% of climatologists who say you are wrong wrong then? 8. Ottobre 2011, 20:47:04 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? (V): Here's a fact for you: 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do. 8. Ottobre 2011, 23:56:18 Argomento: Re:97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis Artful Dodger: You do have some proof of this? Some article or leak from an reputable source >>> not like Bush and his Fake WMD's <<< As for Al Gore... that means everyone else is wrong because a politician beefed things up... Like those old WWII films stating the good old USA won the war purely by being the USA!! Golly. How many politicians beef things up.... Or like with Palin stating that she ain't decided on whether she's running or not and please donate. But her Daughter leaked by accident that she does know, it is decided. Guess the ol' expenses are building up!! 9. Ottobre 2011, 00:24:36 Argomento: Re:You do have some proof of this? Some article or leak from an reputable source >>> not like Bush and his Fake WMD's (V): Do you have an obsession with Bush?  Of course I have proof! 9. Ottobre 2011, 21:09:27 Argomento: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? (V): (V) (hide)show this user posts | show thread | linkSubject: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject? Artful Dodger: can you prove the 97% of climatologists who say you are wrong wrong then? Reply (box) Jules, as I've been demonstrating: it's NOT 97%. 9. Ottobre 2011, 22:20:13 Argomento: Re:Jules, as I've been demonstrating: it's NOT 97%. Artful Dodger: Nope... all that you've demonstrated that there is a 3%. Sound bites do not count. 9. Ottobre 2011, 22:23:18 Argomento: Re:Jules, as I've been demonstrating: it's NOT 97%. (V): You only had sound bites. And I've debunked your 97. Get over it and chalk up another loss to me.  9. Ottobre 2011, 22:34:49 Argomento: Re: another loss to me. Artful Dodger: You should know that in reality there is no real winning or losing on this board. You've debunked nothing... After all, they stopped Nuclear weapons testing over ground for what reason? 8. Ottobre 2011, 23:47:57 Argomento: Re:I know enough of chemistry to know that you cannot pollute or add to a closed environment (as in the atmosphere is covered by a vacuum) ....and have no effect. (V): In other words, man made global warming is true because you own a car??? 12. Ottobre 2011, 08:56:42 Argomento: Re: Artful Dodger: "We've seen these things before in the history of the world. Climate changes. Normal cycyle. Nothing new. Man made? That's where the junk science comes in." I feel with you  Disastrous pollutions, we should agree on that, are man made. It appears that nothing on this world could mess us up, although, certain toys are not in trustable hands. Just like soups and Bernice. Who could stand the poison. 8. Ottobre 2011, 18:53:52 Argomento: Re: Artful Dodger: You can say that global climate change is not affecting your region, if it really was the case. But it is elsewhere, and if we don't address these problems, we will be surprised about refugees. I know how populism works. They will let the mob bash these refugees. And I will bash the populists. 8. Ottobre 2011, 18:55:55 Argomento: Re: gogul: Well, actually I already do  |
Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Torna all'inizio |