Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

The missus is flying mostly to LA this month so no harm there but the plane she flies out of comes in from DC.  They called her at 5am this morning to tell her is was delayed and thus she had 50 minutes more to sleep.....rather idiots!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The missus is flying mostly to LA this month so no harm there but the plane she flies out of comes in from DC.  They called her at 5am this morning to tell her is was delayed and thus she had 50 minutes more to sleep.....rather idiots!

Yep, that is the real affect on humans of climatic change by natural means!

[Nickbat]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/

[cem_devecioglu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/

I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. 
 
minorities

[Nickbat]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/

I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. 
 
minorities

That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.

[cem_devecioglu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/

I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. 
 
minorities

That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.

mistake     problem is some people ignore scientic evidences and they go after what their political beliefs tell them..   I bet you have to wait  looong time to see its false

[Nickbat]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/

I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. 
 
minorities

That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.

mistake     problem is some people ignore scientic evidences and they go after what their political beliefs tell them..   I bet you have to wait  looong time to see its false

Rubbish. Pure and simple. I tell you again that this is NOT about politics, even though you would want it to be so. It is about science and the quest for quantifiable evidence, not the anti-capitalist, anti-US, anti-humanity theories you espouse.

[cem_devecioglu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!

ehem..

It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/

I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. 
 
minorities

That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.

mistake     problem is some people ignore scientic evidences and they go after what their political beliefs tell them..   I bet you have to wait  looong time to see its false

Rubbish. Pure and simple. I tell you again that this is NOT about politics, even though you would want it to be so.
 
 It is about science correct!
 
 
and the quest for quantifiable evidence correct! and the measurable data those organizations collect proove there is warming above natural
 
 
, not the anti-capitalist anti capitalist , yes
 
, anti-US no , nothing to do with anti-US..  there are rights and wrongs.. and I'll criticise whatever I see wrong..
 
 
, anti-humanity theories you espouse. now thats rubbish!

[cem_devecioglu]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

[Nickbat]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

[cem_devecioglu]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
 
all being rightwings crap.. carrying more water to capitalist bankers/=*nk*rs   they will stop only when earth will be completely damaged and no one can breathe!

I never simply accept anything until it is proven.
 
NASA put the evidence in your eyes what you want extra!
 
 I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.
 
May be you also dont believe they landed on moon
 
 

[cem_devecioglu]

and one more point, what surprises me is , 
 
while a handful of greedy blood suckers destroy earth , human kinds future, abuse all workers
for more money,
            you are defending them, ignoring evidences and burrying the head in sand..
 
               well , go on..

[Gaffers]

you two need to get a room

[Nickbat]

and one more point, what surprises me is , 
 
while a handful of greedy blood suckers destroy earth , human kinds future, abuse all workers
for more money,
            you are defending them, ignoring evidences and burrying the head in sand..
 
               well , go on..

Methinks it is the other way round. One day, you will be surprised to learn that it is you who is inadvertently defending the blood suckers.

[cem_devecioglu]

and one more point, what surprises me is , 
 
while a handful of greedy blood suckers destroy earth , human kinds future, abuse all workers
for more money,
            you are defending them, ignoring evidences and burrying the head in sand..
 
               well , go on..

Methinks it is the other way round. One day, you will be surprised to learn that it is you who is inadvertently defending the blood suckers.

here you go then..
 
"The U.S. signed the Protocol, but did not ratify it. Before the Protocol was agreed on, the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution unanimously preventing ratification of any international agreement that 1) did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 2) “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”.^[99] Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty,^[100] it remained only a symbolic act and was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.
When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator Hagel what his administration's position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously,"^[101] but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty, because "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy".^[102] Almost all world leaders (e.g., China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific islands) expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision not to support the treaty.^[103]
The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990, and without US ratification, only an EU+Russia+Japan+small party coalition could place the treaty into legal effect. A deal was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.^[104]"
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
 
 
and from bbc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/kyoto.shtml