Search results

On the upside, modern science, thinking outside the box. On the downside, creationism/intelligent design and other similar piffle, mindlessly throwing the whole f'kn box away. "Firmament".....Lol :p

hmm.. strange why some believers see anyone who's cast aside religious superstition as miserable. Broadly speaking atheists I've met, do seem generally to be more cool and at ease with themselves, without having those irrational hang-ups extremely religious people fret and worry over I...

rich?...lol When it comes to trolling, you can even make someone like Jem look poverty stricken.

Ok, well, now you've addressed some "issues" , are you able to respond directly to my question.

Then might I suggest you next try typing in no fine tuning and get a bit of balance in your life as it sits there on hold.

....but as you're such a massive troll you got here first..... talk about irony. :p

Next you'll be saying you're not a self-righteous, pious, sanctimonious bigot, and some of your best friends are atheists.

I would suggest you can't reasonably conclude that should a god go on public record, listening to its principles of morality must be a moral act. Quite honestly, there is at least one God I am aware of and I'm sure you are too which is on public record, and quite frankly, its moral standards...

Very similar reasoning used for apartheid.

Would you also be the last person to say if something is religious, it is moral? Would you say some things that are religious are not moral; and some things that are moral not religious? Do you think to do something is made more moral because a god is supposed to have said something is...

Unless of course Richard Lindzen's latest model is wrong, as were his models on..... source: RationalWiki Satellite measurements showing no warming. Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an...

Many scientists also without a dog in the game along with the general scientific consensus based on the scientific evidence, confirms AGW. It sounds like you're ok with cutting your nose off to spite your face. Believing there is no AGW because why?. You don't trust big government and big...

Except of course, your belief is not what is determining where the credible science is actually pointing.

Thing is, to a climate skeptic, science is the denial of it.

True to form, soon as you're cornered you start with abuse and name calling. Like I said, the day you can carry a coherent argument will be the first.

He wasn't wrong in 2006 was he? He hasn't changed his position. There is AGW. So who are you calling nutters here? Oh it's your source. Honestly, the day you can carry a coherent argument will be the first. He is saying there only seems to be a break. There are other reasons given by...

..at which time his position was ....."Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." Now apparently, there isn't that scientific evidence for his latest comments ...

Hans Storch. Climate Scientist. Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006 Hearing : Implications for Climate Change Assessments...... "Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change...

C13 is a grenade! You mean Carbon-13 represented as 13C However, what Dr Salby points out refers to something different. The δ13C which is delta 13C, a ratio of 12C and 13C isotobes of Carbon. not the 13C isotope and assuredly not your C13 pineapple:D. The dynamics of the...

Sure, everyone that doesn't agree with you is an "ass wipe". That's great 'science' you are going with there. Nett CO2 has already been addressed. Natural sinks can take up more CO2 than is released naturally into the atmosphere. Good. They don't take up natural CO2 plus all the anthropic...