Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Look Park Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5876-5900 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 2:21:43 PM PDT
@Nat, BPL

Let's not forget that there are more Native Americans living in the US today than there were before Europeans arrived. They were devastated, yes, but their numbers have recovered.

Also let's not forget it was the Mongols who 1st used smallpox as a weapon. The Europeans just copied them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 2:53:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 3:00:07 PM PDT
Nat: I hope you're young. Because if you're old and still this foolish, that would be a sad thing, indeed.

There seems to have been one instance, in the 1763 war called Pontiac's Rebellion, during which Lord Jeffrey Amherst suggested using small pox as a weapon of war, though there doesn't seem to be any evidence that his suggestion was an actual order, still less was carried out. From this, you get a germ-warfare strategy to take over the whole Western Hemisphere? Ward Churchill, has apparently spread a lot of blarney on this subject. You claim to know history, though, so if you have them, give details and sources, and convince all those who have expresed skepticism about your comments on this subject.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 2:56:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 3:01:51 PM PDT
TS: No, I don't quite get your point. I generally have good evidence to support those of my views that I hold to strongly. A vague argument from a slight tendency among college professors in some societies to lean certain ways in their views, on subjects that they have not necessarily studied for themselves in much detail, wouldn't matter to me much, compared to the actual evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 2:58:44 PM PDT
Reader: All right, I appreciate that approach.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 6:30:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 6:44:46 PM PDT
DM: No, I don't quite get your point. I generally have good evidence to support those of my views that I hold to strongly. A vague argument from a slight tendency among college professors in some societies to lean certain ways in their views, on subjects that they have not necessarily studied for themselves in much detail, wouldn't matter to me much, compared to the actual evidence.

TS: Really? You think global warming is just the mild opinion of a few college professers.

Gadzooks -- What ARE you smoking/drinking, DM?
And you were picking on Nat for facts?????????????
--Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

=============================================================

Polls show 97% of climatologists agree global warming is serious.
Virtually all the world's renown science organizations warn of the dangers of global warming, same with ALL the mainstream science magazines, and virtually all the peer reviewed most respected science journals. (The few articles by skeptics were almost always found to be seriously flawed. Ask me for examples!)
PROOF:

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [on global warming - see below]. A few organizations hold non-committal positions >>
taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by the following list of scientific organization with -international standing in the sciences (ie who have issued statements in support of global warming):

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

This includes all the national SCIENCE academies.
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

All the organizations specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS/NASA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
Royal Meteorological Society Community
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Prior to 2007, The only major scientific organization that put out a position rejecting the role of significant human role in global warming was the American Association of Petroleum - a professional organization that works to advance the science of geology (especially in regard to exploration for and production of petroleum). It is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Even they changed their position AFTER June 2007, to be neutral to "the maximum" worse case scenarios of global warming.

"the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models

Compare this with the following that is typical:

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

American Association of Science

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.

The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occur Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Royal Society:

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

The American Chemical Society stated:

.

The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[33]

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

European Science Foundation
In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:
There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased
efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[39]

Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse]gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[46]
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Geological Society of London
In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:
The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater.
There is now widespread concern that the Earthfs climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[48]

/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Most of the tiny number of professional skeptics are strong Libertarians who oppose regulation and also think there is little to no evidence (despite well documentation for their case) that:

--second hand smoke poses a health risk
--the CFCs should have been banned for the ozone hole
--acid rain was ever a problem.
--insecticides and chemicals are not harmful. and there should be no basn.

That is a very common pattern that I have seen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 6:38:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 6:43:55 PM PDT
Reader: Let's not forget that there are more Native Americans living in the US today than there were before Europeans arrived. They were devastated, yes, but their numbers have recovered.

TS: You need to factor in the growth rates that would have taken place if their numbers had not been decimated earlier.

I was just agreeing with DM that most of this was not intentional, but with Natalie that SOME of it was.
Now in the West, I think there were higher numbers of intentional deaths from the Indian Wars.

And remember the Trail of Tears?

So, it's not that we have had an innocent past. Nat lost her argument because of exaggeration/hyperbole....

Posted on Jun 16, 2012 7:19:47 PM PDT
Being decimated as a population and over 100 years later having a larger population isn't much consolation. I have to assume that having your entire way of life, beliefs, and language taken from you then being told that it was all mistaken, worthless, and meaningless.....tends to have an effect on people. Having most "treaties" broken by the other side and continually being forced to move to more and more difficult land also didn't help.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 1:37:09 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
"Nat lost her argument because of exaggeration/hyperbole....". Wow he's now the the big argument judge

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 2:43:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 2:44:00 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "It wasn't until he started repeating the SAME refuted trash, that I began to get testy."

Now, I might have mentioned something about that earlier...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 2:45:55 AM PDT
A customer says:
David Marshall - "That is, interpretting the question favorably. Unfavorably, it might sound like you're comparing people who deny the Holocaust, to people who doubt the world is about to heat up and blow away because of a few extra CO2 molecules per million in the atmosphere."

Why not? They basically use the exact same patterns of reasoning. The only difference as far as I can tell is that AW Deniers are prepared to kill people that are still alive today, and to smear others to get their way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 2:49:40 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "That there is a big and growing scientific controversy over anthropogenic sources of global warming is almost certainly untrue."

As the existence of a scientific controversy is not a scientific issue per se and thus not subject to the provisional nature of scientific answers, I am quite happy to say that there is no such "growing controversy" whatsoever. The consensus that AW is happening is as solid as a scientific consensus ever gets.

Thanks for the link, by the way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 2:52:10 AM PDT
A customer says:
David Marshall - "What "American holocaust?" The only thing that could remotely be called that, might be the death of Native Americans after the Spanish invasion, some 90-95% of which was caused by pathogens."

He's referring to the 40 million deaths in the 100-odd US interventions aimed at a global economic Final Solution since the Second World War, as documented by the State Department historian William Blum, among others.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 2:57:28 AM PDT
A customer says:
Nat - "Google American conquest genocide. It is everywhere. People in America don't want to know"

For a long time I think people in Europe didn't want to know, but it is becoming more commonplace today. I always try to comfort myself with the observation that I am descended from those who stayed at home rather than going and taking part, but we seem to have retained some of their nastier characteristics based on the last Century's events. Just one, big, vicious family.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:12:12 AM PDT
A customer says:
A Reader - "Let's not forget that there are more Native Americans living in the US today than there were before Europeans arrived."

Depends whose figures you credit. I believe that there are historians who place the pre-colonisation figure up around 100 million. Too far from my field to even guess at whether this is credible, but perhaps worth questioning.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:35:50 AM PDT
Tcopyright: "Nat lost her argument because of exaggeration/hyperbole....". Wow he's now the the big argument judge

BPL: I forgot to put TPW on filter again. I'll be forgetting my head next.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:55:56 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "You need to factor in the growth rates that would have taken place if their numbers had not been decimated earlier."

Quite.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 6:19:44 AM PDT
BDD: Being decimated as a population and over 100 years later having a larger population isn't much consolation. I have to assume that having your entire way of life, beliefs, and language taken from you then being told that it was all mistaken, worthless, and meaningless.....tends to have an effect on people. Having most "treaties" broken by the other side and continually being forced to move to more and more difficult land also didn't help.

TS: Yes their land was forcibly and often illegally taken from them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 7:16:45 AM PDT
Well also.....numbers don't "make up" for injustices.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 7:33:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 7:49:12 AM PDT
Truthseeker - "It wasn't until he started repeating the SAME refuted trash, that I began to get testy."

ECB: Now, I might have mentioned something about that earlier...

TS: You did. But you took it to a level of talking about people not being worthy to live, so you were going to trash their character, etc.

I attack only the CURRENT actions and posts ; i.e, allow one to resurface and become a rational human being layer. I don't hold a grudge either, unless I see the same behavior...

BTW: I think some people can be pulled out of fascism, if they are rationally shown their flaws.
Of course, others find themselves too enamored with the emotional feeling of "superiority" against a hated scapgoat that is also the "cause" of all society's ills.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 7:38:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 8:03:45 AM PDT
BDD: Well also.....numbers don't "make up" for injustices.

TS: You came in all the tail end of the discussion.

I had ONLY jumped in a discussion between Natalie and David Marshall when Natalie accused him as follows:

<<Nat: By the way what rules. I am allowed to say "shut up" when someone is defending genocide

TS: Sheesh, you make me defend DM. I think you imagined this.>>

I was merely defending DM against that charge -- which I still do not think he deserved.
That's it!

I saw this was being spun out that there were no grotesque past abuses against Indians. I was not saying that. I would give DM enough credit, to predict he would not say this either.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 7:50:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 11:13:06 AM PDT
Thanks, BPL. :=]

but I don't think it's an impersonation.

He started acting strange when he put out a post on the Political Forum, and I responded I didn't think the right wingers he was conversing with (including TeaPartywoman) would personally "care" if species were going extinct or not/ i.e., that this would not be a pursuading argument for them on global warming. My implication was that they only cared about themselves and their inner circle.

It's true, I can offend both the EXTREME left and the EXTREME right.
If he keeps it up, I'll just put him on ignore, and he should notice that because his voting tally will get worse without me.

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 11:27:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012 8:32:11 PM PDT
TS said: He started acting strange when he put out a post on the Political Forum, and I responded I didn't think the right wingers he was conversing with (including TeaPartywoman) would personally "care" if species were going extinct or not/ i.e., that this would not be a persuading argument for them on global warming. My implication was that they only cared about themselves and their inner circle.

My comment: In a non biased way, I think that is a big part of that issue. At the risk of over simplification, conservatives tend to be pragmatic, see themselves as being practical, see things "as they are" (or as they think they are), rank the bottom line as a very high priority and their opinions tend to be in their own interest. It's an extreme case but followers of Ayn Rand even view altruism as immoral and wrong (go figure). Environmentalism or even caring if species go extinct is based on a new concept (for western civilization) that there are invisible connections that are important in and of themselves. One way of seeing will tend to rate everything in value on a monetary scale, which seems the most real and all important.....yet ironically, is actually the completely artificial one as far as nature is concerned. Most people see things in the monetary way because that has a big impact on their lives in society. Under appreciated are the also very real and potentially even more damaging consequences of breaking invisible connections in the environment.

These days many who consider themselves to be "conservative" would not say that they are anti-environment but still their inner valuation system and what concerns them most don't tend to lend themselves to anything that could be seen as "impractical".

People aren't very good at connections or future implications and are no good at all at seeing what at first seems invisible. Yet, "What is most important is always invisible to the eye".

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 11:30:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 11:32:19 AM PDT
A customer says:
A couple of things I never noticed about Spencer's page. Firstly, I missed that he has, indeed, switched the type of comedy regression line he is using, as I think I predicted would happen as soon as it started saying the wrong thing. I actually missed it at the time - rather remiss of me. He says "4th order" for May and "3rd order" lower down for April. I haven't run the plots to check yet, though, so it could just be a typo.

Perhaps more interestingly, the first three paragraphs all admit to warming trends, culminating in: "Despite the weaker warming trend in my dataset, Spring 2012 still ranks as the warmest spring since the beginning of my record (1973)."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 12:09:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 12:26:52 PM PDT
BDD: People aren't very good at connections or future implications and are no good at all at seeing what at first seems invisible. Yet, "What is most important is always invisible to the eye".

TS: You're preaching to the choir.
Which is why I was trying to tell TH, they didn't care squat about his posts about species protection.

Now I would not characterize the word as "pragmatic" -- though I agree this is what they would call it.

Actually I read a great article on this. I'll see if I kept it. Nope.

So I will summarize --
Essentually, an environmentalist that works for a large environmental organizations told how he migrated from the view that enviornmentals must think of bringing back pristine forests and animals, to a view of sustainability -- preventing environmental degradation/poisoning.

He said a turning point for him was sitting for years in environmental trials of logging companies, and seeing the loggers bringing in their families, worried if they would still have a job, if say a spotted owl, etc was pronounced protected.

There were degrees of being an enviornmentalist was his point.

The right wingers have done a good job creating the false image ANY protection of the environment is akin to extreme leftists who want to bring back a pristine wilderness.

I thought TH was perpetuating that image, so I suggested he try other tactics that -- as you note -- they would find more "pragmatic".

I told him other people didn't think they way he did.
That's when he got angry.

BDD: People aren't very good at connections or future implications and are no good at all at seeing what at first seems invisible. Yet, "What is most important is always invisible to the eye".

TS: Well said. That's what the scientists are trying to say. But it is visible in the climate models.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 12:11:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 12:24:26 PM PDT
ECG: Perhaps more interestingly, the first three paragraphs all admit to warming trends, culminating in: "Despite the weaker warming trend in my dataset, Spring 2012 still ranks as the warmest spring since the beginning of my record (1973)."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

TS: Great post, ECB. And typical of what I have seen from this super Libertarian and fundi Creationist type [with emphasis on the former]
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 875 1 minute ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 772 2 minutes ago
spherical earth vs. flat earth 3599 1 hour ago
GMO Labeling Bill Passed 3 2 hours ago
Tesla deliveries, and lost money on every one! 423 3 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 6402 4 hours ago
Computers to consume all energy production by 2040! PANIC!!! 4 6 hours ago
If Dark Matter were everywhere all celestial motion calculations would be different? 29 9 hours ago
Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels....Why do you guys deny the Science? 89 10 hours ago
The New Truth 30 1 day ago
Since no contact is possible, does it make sense to keep trying? 318 2 days ago
Wouldn't Cloning Reduce Sexual Crimes? 2 2 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions