Global warming

Sportello

Well-Known Member
A five year old editorial written by Christopher Booker, who claims asbestos is the same as talcum powder, and second hand smoke is just fine?

This is what you come up with?

How about real science, instead of a deniers 5 year old editorial?

You guys are funny, in a sad sort of way.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Post some real science.

Bet you can't.


Read this thread. I've linked to published,peer reviewed articles. Some people call that "real science".

Of course, you're free to get your info from a climate change website founded by a cartoonist with no scientific background. It takes all kinds to make the world go around.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Read this thread. I've linked to published,peer reviewed articles. Some people call that "real science".

Of course, you're free to get your info from a climate change website founded by a cartoonist with no scientific background. It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

You're an ignoramus. The only sources you cite are the usual suspects. Peers reviewing peers who are also morons doesn't equal good science.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
As has become normal you can do little more than resort to name calling.

Which you do regularly, calling liberals 'mentally deficient', ad nauseum.

Please do, give us some 'peer-reviewed' 'scientific' studies that aren't funded by either the oil industry, the Koch brothers, on and on...give us some studies that deny global warming/climate change by any entity that isn't getting funded by an oil/gas industry or a related subsidiary.

I'm breathless with anticipation.

(I'm not sure y'all understand what 'science' means).
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Which you do regularly, calling liberals 'mentally deficient', ad nauseum.

When? I think you are making that up.

If funding is your concern then you should not post a link to something that supports the global warming paranoia that uses any information funded by any government.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Just what sort of 'science' would be acceptable to you if government funded science is not? How about corporate funded science?

You're confused. I'm not the one trying to shut down science by attacking the funding source. I'll leave that to the nazi impersonater at skeptical science. I simply asked if you would apply the same standard to yourselves that you demand of others and judging your reaction I am guessing that I can put you in the no colum.
 
Top