Search results

Yes, it is a lie. The righties are lying here, again. The comment is unvetted. That means not thoroughly examined. But that's good enough for the hysterical right wing nutjobs to reach some hysterical conclusion.

I'll ask again ......... What is the rest of the sentence? Newsflash numbskull......sentences don't end with a comma. Notice the comma? Without the rest of the sentence it means nothing. Typical righty psuedo-fact but good enough for them.

Like I said, it is not the consensus that makes AGW true, it's the facts....Jack. You keep wanting to go to your safe area about how invalid a consensus opinion is. But you are right about one thing, what you say about AGW is basically a waste of time.

So calling you out on yet another case of your intellectual dishonesty is juvenile crap. OK then

bla bla bla GHG....40%....rising temps ....melting ice....common sense

Seek help.

OK keep it in mind the next time 97 doctors tell you one thing and the other three tell you something else. Go with the three percent and let me know how it works out for you. Besides, I'm not relying on polls. I'm relying on common sense and knowledge of the basic irrefutable facts that CO2...

And yet, the only real look at it says otherwise. It's also irrelevant. There was no scientific consensus at the time. In fact the consensus in 1975 was that no prediction of the climate could be made at the time. It's much different today. Science has advanced in forty years. The...

You make a good point. In addition I think women are not as partisan as men are and can more likely be swayed to vote the other party.

Romney, Bush and Christie can all beat Clinton. The others? Slim chance.

I'll go slowly for you... The lyrics (my post, from a REM song) are, "It's the end of the world AS WE KNOW IT." This is NOT the same as "It's the end of the world". But of course that's what you presented as my argument since you are an intellectually dishonest person. "It's the end of...

Nice taking one phrase out of context. What about the rest of the sentence? We know you righties like it simple so you can go off on a crazed rage about imagined horrors.

But there is no good proof he said that. Once again the right runs with pseudo-facts. If there is good proof I would like to see it.

LOL Thanks for the laugh. Lucrum NEVER posted anything remotely approaching intelligent. His idea of an intelligent comment was a large "bullshit!".

And once again the intellectually dishonest lawyer misrepresents what Szostak thinks. Just because they currently have no complete plausible pathway it does not mean he can't imagine any plausible pathways. There are multiple pathways that are possible and he says as much. There is NO...

Yes of course you think there is no plausible pathway. You have proved time and time again that you really don't understand science. But you are so intellectually dishonest that it's hard to know what you really DO think.

And your guess would be wrong. This has been in the works for many years and was a stated aim of Obama's from the beginning. And once again we have the curious situation where the right.....the majority of whom profess that they are Christian and want to keep Christ in Christmas and all...

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate...

A smattering of the gun violence across the country yesterday: One person was shot and killed before the shooter shot him- or herself yesterday in Raleigh, NC; three children were in the residence at the time of the shooting (link). An employee of a gas station was shot and killed early...

And that guy continues to be a dope. He fails to mention something very important. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.