Jump to content

Do You Believe Global Warming Is Real?


EnlightenedMessiah

Recommended Posts

The fascist totalitarians who want to control every aspect of our lives are simply using this issue to gain even more power......I'd like to know, if humans are causing "global warming", who is causing it on EVERY OTHER PLANET IN THIS SYSTEM??? It's a system wide event and not limited just to Earth....you won't hear the "scientists" mentioning THAT because there is no power to be gained from it.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know if global warming is for real or not... You can find scientific evidence supporting either side of the issue. The real question is why is this a big issue for our politians? The answer, of course, is more taxes. Do you remember the cap and trade they tried to peddle a few years ago? More taxes!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

omg, I cant believe he admitted that. Did you march with MLK?. Were you active in helping blacks get equal rights? Did you attend any rallies?

Does one have to march or attend rallies to confirm what he believes?  Would you like to go to Ferguson and protest the "hands up, don't shoot" allegation?  Unlike you, I dont believe racism belongs to one particular race but rather is practiced to some extend by all races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a discussion that breaks the issue down, although rudimentary, in a way most on this board can understand. My apologies that it doesn't come from the great scientific mind of Rush Limbaugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&feature=youtube_gdata_player


That's funny stuff. It seems like there's a disproportionate amount of deniers on this board, for some reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That video is full of misleading half-truths and downright lies. I had to cut it off midway through it because it follows the tired old scheme of praying on the public naivety.

 

How come that (supposedly) 97% of "scientists/climatologists" agree man is causing harm to our earth through global warming, but not one will submit to an uncensored debate with "global warming deniers". (The 97% of agreement is probably the biggest lie in the video.) There is a group of climatoligists that have begged and offered to pay Al Gore and his legion of scientists a substantial amount of money for an uncensored/unscripted debate. Why do the "believers" always refuse? They just consistently say that the debate is over...which is as far from the truth as possible. They say that their research has been peer reviewed. The problem is that the "peers" are just other "believers". The "deniers" we are called are not deniers at all. We just ask to be shown empirical evidence that man is causing climate change (including data that hasn't been altered). The "believers" can't do it. So the "believers" resort to disparaging and belittling the skeptical.

 

They talk about how the ice is melting in the Artic, but yet never mention the growing volume of ice sheets in the Antarctic. They say the Earth is warming, but don't dare mention the fact that the Earth has NOT gotten warmer in the past 15 years. They espouse their global warming models, but don't dare speak about how every one of them (yes, every single one) has failed. Not only failed, but failed miserably. They don't ever mention the effect sun flares have on the planet. They don't even mention the effects of volcanic activity. But yet somehow the people who question them are somehow "less evolved".

 

And anyone who believes these piece-of-crap "climatologists", all you have to do is follow the money. In fact, by just doing a little research you can find more than enough evidence that refutes and puts into question every single talking point the "believers" can muster. I'm not going to post all the refuting links out there...they are easy to find. I've done the research years ago and have not seen anything since then that remotely resembles new or improved "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[font=Arial, 'sans-serif']That video is full of misleading half-truths and downright lies. I had to cut it off midway through it because it follows the tired old scheme of praying on the public naivety.[/size][/font]
 
[font=Arial, 'sans-serif']How come that (supposedly) 97% of "scientists/climatologists" agree man is causing harm to our earth through global warming, but not one will submit to an uncensored debate with "global warming deniers". [/size][/font][font=Arial, 'sans-serif'](The 97% of agreement is probably the biggest lie in the video.) There is a group of climatoligists that have begged and offered to pay Al Gore and his legion of scientists a substantial amount of money for an uncensored/unscripted debate. Why do the "believers" always refuse? They just consistently say that the debate is over...which is as far from the truth as possible. They say that their research has been peer reviewed. The problem is that the "peers" are just other "believers". T[/size][/font][font=Arial, 'sans-serif']he "deniers" we are called are not deniers at all. We just ask to be shown empirical evidence that man is causing climate change (including data that hasn't been altered). The "believers" can't do it. So the "believers" resort to disparaging and belittling the skeptical.[/size][/font]
 
[font=Arial, 'sans-serif']They talk about how the ice is melting in the Artic, but yet never mention the growing volume of ice sheets in the Antarctic. They say the Earth is warming, but don't dare mention the fact that the Earth has NOT gotten warmer in the past 15 years. They [font=Arial, 'sans-serif']espouse [/size][/font]their global warming models, but don't dare speak about how every one of them (yes, every single one) has failed. Not only failed, but failed miserably. They don't ever mention the effect sun flares have on the planet. They don't even mention the effects of volcanic activity. But yet somehow the people who question them are somehow "less evolved".[/size][/font]
 
[font=Arial, 'sans-serif']And anyone who believes these piece-of-crap "climatologists", all you have to do is follow the money. In fact, by just doing a little research you can find more than enough evidence that refutes and puts into question every single talking point the "believers" can muster. I'm not going to post all the refuting links out there...they are easy to find. I've done the research years ago and have not seen anything since then [/size][/font][font=Arial, 'sans-serif']that remotely resembles new or improved "evidence".[/size][/font]


Good post...the low information voters won't understand or like it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you guys are right. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community skew their data because they are liberals. You figured it out. What is the most ridiculous thing about this discussion is that it has become a bi-partisan issue. It really should transcend party lines. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Unless you are named Limbaugh and serving magic kool aid. But I will leave the rest of this discussion to the legion of meteorologic geniuses occupying this board :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you guys are right. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community skew their data because they are liberals. You figured it out. What is the most ridiculous thing about this discussion is that it has become a bi-partisan issue. It really should transcend party lines. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Unless you are named Limbaugh and serving magic kool aid. But I will leave the rest of this discussion to the legion of meteorologic geniuses occupying this board :rolleyes:

LOL!  You drink obama kool-aid and we drink Limbaugh kool-aid.   You can have the socialist obama's flavored drink.    :rolleyes:  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how me giving more of my money to the govt. while they fly around the world in private jets is gonna help the environment!

True!  I heard 107 jets flew to Davos to complain about global warming.  And about everybody -- except them -- cutting back on everything you do to save the planet.  But this is what socialist/communist do.  Control, people, it's all all controlling people!  LOL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...