Tina Fey Calls Out ‘Hollywood Bullshit'
Comments
-
Now you get yours news from cartoons. Nice work.Sledog said:
The deniers need only use the data the liars have. Simple stuff.2001400ex said:
Your news source must be scientists studying global warming for free.Sledog said:
Lots of scientists disagree with the global warming crap. The collusion that's pulling down all the grant money has been caught red handed fudging the numbers, the deniers haven't.2001400ex said:
The best part is you blast scientists for being paid off about global warming. Then link to two sites that are paid to paint a picture of climate change as a myth.Sledog said: -
I thought the picture might help in your case.
-
What, the picture that's about as truthful as a cartoon?Sledog said:I thought the picture might help in your case.
-
Got a link? Given your cartoon says 1996 and 2016. I'm curious how the NOAA knows what the mean temperature is 2 months into the year.Sledog said:
It's clear you really are the dumb. -
Here ya go. Cooking the numbers and getting caught. Same old story.
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/CATO-DQA-MIT-NOAA/2016/02/01/id/712153/
-
You don't answer my question about 1996 and 2016.Sledog said:Here ya go. Cooking the numbers and getting caught. Same old story.
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/CATO-DQA-MIT-NOAA/2016/02/01/id/712153/
Then you link to a dude who wrote 2 books about climate change hoax. Do you think he donated the profits from the books to charity? -
You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
-
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.Sledog said:You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living? -
I agree with you on this Honda about climate change. I think that there is a human element that is speeding up the natural occurrence of it. However, I think you've also acknowledged that America has come a long way in reducing their impact, and in many ways is leading the world in this effect. But if other countries like China and India don't come on board, we're really not helping the overall problem. This needs to be a global effort, and when a few countries get involved, it creates economic imbalance, and enables those advantaged countries (who are creating most of the problem), to continue their over production of green house gases.2001400ex said:
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.Sledog said:You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
I think further restrictions within our own border will cause a greater proportion of economic difficulties than the desired effect on climate change, when others don't participate. If these other countries voluntarily or by force (sanctions) come on board, then I'd be for further steps to help the issue. -
I'm kinda with you on what America does. In that yes, India, China and other countries need to be on board. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue down the path we are on for reduced emissions. We have plans and regulations for vehicles and such to me implemented years down the road.greenblood said:
I agree with you on this Honda about climate change. I think that there is a human element that is speeding up the natural occurrence of it. However, I think you've also acknowledged that America has come a long way in reducing their impact, and in many ways is leading the world in this effect. But if other countries like China and India don't come on board, we're really not helping the overall problem. This needs to be a global effort, and when a few countries get involved, it creates economic imbalance, and enables those advantaged countries (who are creating most of the problem), to continue their over production of green house gases.2001400ex said:
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.Sledog said:You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
I think further restrictions within our own border will cause a greater proportion of economic difficulties than the desired effect on climate change, when others don't participate. If these other countries voluntarily or by force (sanctions) come on board, then I'd be for further steps to help the issue. -
Vehicles, I get it. But this whole thing on carbon emissions bothers me. I understand that we need some regulation on industrial greenhouse production. But not to an extent that leaves us in a huge economic disadvantage compared to other countries that don't play by the same rules.2001400ex said:
I'm kinda with you on what America does. In that yes, India, China and other countries need to be on board. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue down the path we are on for reduced emissions. We have plans and regulations for vehicles and such to me implemented years down the road.greenblood said:
I agree with you on this Honda about climate change. I think that there is a human element that is speeding up the natural occurrence of it. However, I think you've also acknowledged that America has come a long way in reducing their impact, and in many ways is leading the world in this effect. But if other countries like China and India don't come on board, we're really not helping the overall problem. This needs to be a global effort, and when a few countries get involved, it creates economic imbalance, and enables those advantaged countries (who are creating most of the problem), to continue their over production of green house gases.2001400ex said:
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.Sledog said:You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
I think further restrictions within our own border will cause a greater proportion of economic difficulties than the desired effect on climate change, when others don't participate. If these other countries voluntarily or by force (sanctions) come on board, then I'd be for further steps to help the issue. -
You are going to need to tell me what ipso facto means before I know if I should upvote or downvote your post.TurdBuffer said:It's much easier to sit back and deny, deny, deny, than to prove a scientific theory. Yet the deniers pretend they're equivalent. So some climate scientists got ahead of themselves and over-stated their cases. It's not right, but that shit happens, and it got corrected. But, because some scientists fudged does not, ipso facto, invalidate the entire field or theory, especially with mounds of supportive data and research. Yet, confirmation bias enters the picture and people then extract from one example to conclude it's a complete fraud. Not exactly empirical or scientific, yet politically extremely effective. Obviously.
-
Yeah Al owned a big chunk of the company that would trade all the carbon credits. Imagine that....2001400ex said:
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.Sledog said:You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
Wiki don't count. -
Wiki don't count? Cause you prefer to listen to people profiting off of denying global climate change, rather than read facts. Then blast Al Gore for profiting and linking to people who are profiting.Sledog said:
Yeah Al owned a big chunk of the company that would trade all the carbon credits. Imagine that....2001400ex said:
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.Sledog said:You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
Wiki don't count.
Got it. -
When the next mini ice age shows up we will all hope we can warm it up
-
CrispedRaceBannon said:When the next mini ice age shows up we will all hope we can warm it up so my balls can drop.
-
Your balls will never drop because you don't have any
-
When the next ice age shows up this thread will still be here, polluting the board.RaceBannon said:When the next mini ice age shows up we will all hope we can warm it up
-
Feel the Bern.RaceBannon said:Your balls will never drop because you don't have any
