By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sguy78 on 19 February 2010
Edit Thread
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:

 

Oh and OP - No realistic believer in the science is going to go near this thread. You are simply baiting idiots.  Noone wants to get abused by the triple tag team of CS trouble.

What science? Have you been living under a rock for the past two months? This isn't science. These people have been purposefully been deleting any information that disproves their theories. How can you blindly follow this bull? Hey, if you believe that, how about you give me your bank account number, your date of birth, and allow me to empty your bank account? I promise you'll have a million dollars within a week.

Key word is highlighted. So you now admit you started this thread in order to "convert" believers, right?

This thread should be stopped, but it wont be, and the mods that participate in this thread should be banned for letting it continue, but they won't be.

 

 

 

 

Typical Liberal response. Your arguments are flawed, and you are losing on logical grounds, so we need to be shut up because we don't agree with you, right?

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.

So I would gather that you don't think that industrialized nations should enter into binding carbon trading treaties, as was the goal at Copenhagen? Look, if something can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. Kodak was dumping a ton of chemicals into Lake Ontario via the Gennesee River for years up until my early childhood, and there was provable evidence this was harming the lake. I am glad they were forced to clean up their act. However, I don't want my electric bill to go up, or jobs to be lost in my country because China and India aren't trading carbon emissions like everyone else, and are selling product for half as much as the rest of us. Not on something that hasn't been proven, and as of late has actually for no small part been proven to be fraudulent.