"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???

[jahbrudda]

Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s [2001] assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations."

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

he also works with roy spencer. who is roy spencer?

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)


woooo0o0oooo0ooooo000000ooo0oo0oo0ops.

Woops my butt, you constantly marginalize every source that does not fit your agenda, you only to read what you want to believe.
Stating he signed an evangelical declaration is immaterial, a distraction used all the time by partisans, you're nothing new.
It's a typical democrat ploy that's failed for years, magicians use this slide of hand tactic to distract the house as well.
Oh, and how ironic of you to use Wikipedia on a political issue as your citation.

[h=1]Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias [/h]

• Share to Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Add to PersonalPost
• More

Wikipedia was founded on the notion the Internet is a self-correcting machine: by harnessing collective intelligence through an open-source platform, the facts will ultimately come to light. But a new study shows that collective intelligence generally produces biased information, except in a narrow range of circumstances. Northwestern’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed a decade’s worth of Wikipedia articles on U.S. politics and found that only a handful of them were politically neutral. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html

You really need more practice at this.

 

[UncleBuck]

you constantly marginalize every source that does not fit your agenda

Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s [2001] assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations."

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

he also works with roy spencer. who is roy spencer?

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spe...28scientist%29

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Much less biased

 

[jahbrudda]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Much less biased

Every source you and buck use, is bias source.
See how that works.

 

[UncleBuck]

Every source you and buck use, is bias source.
See how that works.

signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

 

[jahbrudda]

signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Are you saying you have irrefutable proof to the contrary?
If you do, please go into detail to back your claim up.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Every source you and buck use, is bias source.
See how that works.

Yeah, just like every university in the world has a liberal bias..

 

[UncleBuck]

Are you saying you have irrefutable proof to the contrary?

i'd ask you if you even have one single iota of evidence to support this "intelligent design" (euphemism for creationism) nonsense, but i already know the answer is NO because it is a scientifically untestable theory.

but thanks for understanding that you have no idea how science works and follow the "scientists" who believe that sky daddy did it all.

dumbass.

 

[jahbrudda]

Yeah, just like every university in the world has a liberal bias..

How many have you attended?

 

[jahbrudda]

i'd ask you if you even have one single iota of evidence to support this "intelligent design" (euphemism for creationism) nonsense, but i already know the answer is NO because it is a scientifically untestable theory.

but thanks for understanding that you have no idea how science works and follow the "scientists" who believe that sky daddy did it all.

dumbass.

Does this mean you have no proof?

 

[UncleBuck]

Does this mean you have no proof?

do you not get how this works?

creationism is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, it can not be tested scientifically. that means YOU have ZERO evidence whatsoever for your dumbass theory and will never have any evidence whatsoever because it can not be tested.

ever heard the saying that "a wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence"?

that speaks volumes about you.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How many have you attended?

Why would someone need to attend an academic institution to know their opinion on an internationally accepted scientific fact?

Once again, since you apparently can't see it..

What would you accept as undeniable proof of climate change (or evolution)?

You won't/can't answer that simple question because there is nothing you will accept as proof.


This single post alone discredits your entire bullshit argument from the get go, but keep on trying...

 

[NoDrama]

I don't think anyone is denying that the climate changes, hell I see it happen every day. Many deny that humans are the cause.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't think anyone is denying that the climate changes, hell I see it happen every day. Many deny that humans are the cause.

That's exactly what the 97% of scientists agree with, that mankind is responsible for the current pattern we see in the climate changing

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

"So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon."

 

[NLXSK1]

That's exactly what the 97% of scientists agree with, that mankind is responsible for the current pattern we see in the climate changing

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

"So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon."

Except the premise is not true. 97% of scientists do not agree and you should be skeptical at that number to begin with...

You are being fed a load of bullshit by your government...

 

[Pinworm]

Except the premise is not true. 97% of scientists do not agree and you should be skeptical at that number to begin with...

You are being fed a load of bullshit by your government...

Load of bullshit fed by government > load of shit fed by NXLS1

 

[NLXSK1]

Here is the last sentence in the introduction...

The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

Gee... no AGENDA there!!! LOL!!! More money sucked up by world governments so they can ration energy and run our lives. Damn, where do I sign up!!!

 

[UncleBuck]

Except the premise is not true. 97% of scientists do not agree and you should be skeptical at that number to begin with...

You are being fed a load of bullshit by your government...

have you ever been right about anything, ever?

 

[NLXSK1]

have you ever been right about anything, ever?

Every time I tell you that you are an idiot!!


Who knew there were less than 30,000 scientists in the world?!?!?!?! I mean less than 30K signed this bullshit document and that is supposedly 97%!!!! Holy Shit BATMAN!!! We had better get the EPA to protect the scientist as an endangered species.

Have another beer UB!!!

 

[UncleBuck]

Every time I tell you that you are an idiot!!


Who knew there were less than 30,000 scientists in the world?!?!?!?! I mean less than 30K signed this bullshit document and that is supposedly 97%!!!! Holy Shit BATMAN!!! We had better get the EPA to protect the scientist as an endangered species.

Have another beer UB!!!

you should present your disproof, have it peer reviewed, collect worldwide fame and fortune, and retire from servicing dudes for $20 all day as a hero of right wingers everywhere.

what's that? you have no disproof? no peer reviewed research disproves anthropogenic climate change?

oh, so sorry to hear all that.

i guess it's back to servicing dudes for $20 all day in your case. don't worry about me, i'll be sitting here trimming about 3 pounds of weed.