Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

My opinions are mine and I share them on here. I don't have to have any scientific background, in fact I truly believe that today a scientist is at odds with truth. And to see the amazing number of them climbing on THIS gravy train is adding fuel to the fire of distrust. You know there isn't anywhere near enough real evidence to state that GW is attributable to man. Or are you already on board the train?

 

I enjoy the HOPE of the rapture in my life, but absolutely don't depend upon it. If I were to depend on it I would get one of those fancy home loans in which you pay 0 or 1% interest for the first several years, freeing up mortgage money to "enjoy" life or support more missionary's, etc. Instead of a 30 year fixed.

And there will be a rapture, in case that was your point.

 

You know BIR. Every time someone has an opinion contradicting yours, you start demanding their credentials as an expert. It's that thinking that you would disqualify a non-vet from an opinion on war, and a childless person on school issues. It's tiresome, boring and frankly makes me angry. You seem to be fully justified in citing pseudo scientific data in your defense of "earth v. man" and yet that's OK.

I'm done with discussions with you over this nonsense.

Regards,
hill

 

I never used the word "expert," and you know that. Please stick to what I write if you are going to make an observation about me. I simply asked you why you feel that it is "impossible" that man is creating this, if it indeed exists. You have dismissed this whole thought as "impossible." When I asked you why you feel this, you said that it was a result of your common sense. Then when I asked you about your background, you make this nonsensical reply that I am demanding credentials. I didn't "demand" anything, I simply asked you a question.

Again, this is nothing that I have written. I simply asked you why you feel that it is "impossible." That is it, nothing more: I simply asked you a question. Why are you getting so defensive and attributing ideas/thoughts/comments/words that I never wrote.

I have already said that I am not sure if I buy into global warming yet, and this is quite evident in the posts that I have written thus far, both to you and to Dragoon68.

Did I or did I not ask you how you arrived to your conclusion that this is "impossible?" You didn't use a word that it was unlikely or improbable, you used the word "impossible." I fail to see why you felt compelled to post a response to me not once, but twice, as if you were sitting there for an hour between the posts seething in anger.

This is twice in one week that I have had a person respond to me with comments I never made. This is starting to get old......

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

It's Biblical. I don't know how one could not believe in it.

But that would be the subject for another forum.

Puzzling, nevertheless.

 

Staying on topic might help....

psssssssst.......you're not the topic

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

 

BTW, even the deniers have now admitted that there is global warming. They've retreated back to "but man isn't responsible for any of it." Fortunately, the Bush administration, many evangelicals, CEOs of major corporations, etc. have accepted the obvious and are seeking a feasible way to do something about it.

The few remaining deniers are increasingly marginalized as more an more evidence comes in.

 

Ah, so God doesn't have the ultimate say....thanks for info....forgive me if I think He does

 

Barbarian observes:
Fortunately, the Bush administration, many evangelicals, CEOs of major corporations, etc. have accepted the obvious and are seeking a feasible way to do something about it.

I'd say you were pretty mixed up, if you think that. How does the reality of global warming mean God doesn't have the ultimate say? This is such a bizarre conclusion, given the evidence, that I have to wonder if you didn't post in the wrong thread.

 

Having accepted neither stance, I object to the attempts to silence the opposition.

Usually, attempts are made to silent the opposition when your own position is not solid enough to bear scrutiny, like a house built upon sand.

 

Sounds like Heidi Cullen wants to censor those who disagree with her global warming agenda. The Weather Channel is already commercialized. Now it's being politicized. Back in 2004, Heidi Cullen and The Weather Channel kept pushing The Day After Tomorrow, Hollywood's version of the dangers of global warming.

 

I don't think that, I know God does have the ultimate say It seems the We're all gonna fryists believe that He doesn't though. It certainly looks like "We have to do something because God can't/won't" from here.

Actually I'm even starting to almost take my quasi-pantheist-gaiaist theory slightly seriously, because it seems the story is almost preached..."Believe in the truth. Repent and turn from the evils of coal and oil, and let no person use more than a kilowatt hour a day. Then go into the world and preach the....." :smilewinkgrin: