Gallup- Statistics about the "fetal position"- 5/08

[Flying Dog]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 16 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

1.) I'm not 16
2.) Climatologists (really scientist not Al Gore and his cronies) are split on the issue pretty evenly

Ha! Some Corporate big-wigs pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming doesn't exists...

[minionofmidas]

Down, you've got a million dollar voice but a ten cent brain. And on the Internet, no one can hear you scream.

So, he should whore himself for $1,000,000.10?

It's a quote. Combined with another quote. The coupling occurred to me about two days before I posted it, and I spent much of those two days looking for the first opportunity to use it before settling for this semi-opportunity. (Roy Acuff said the part about the voice and the brain. To Hank Williams, before Hank made it big time. Acuff was right.)

[Person Man]

Down, you've got a million dollar voice but a ten cent brain. And on the Internet, no one can hear you scream.

So, he should whore himself for $1,000,000.10?

It's a quote. Combined with another quote. The coupling occurred to me about two days before I posted it, and I spent much of those two days looking for the first opportunity to use it before settling for this semi-opportunity. (Roy Acuff said the part about the voice and the brain. To Hank Williams, before Hank made it big time. Acuff was right.)

So Hank Williams should have whored himself out for $1,000,000.10?

[minionofmidas]

Down, you've got a million dollar voice but a ten cent brain. And on the Internet, no one can hear you scream.

So, he should whore himself for $1,000,000.10?

It's a quote. Combined with another quote. The coupling occurred to me about two days before I posted it, and I spent much of those two days looking for the first opportunity to use it before settling for this semi-opportunity. (Roy Acuff said the part about the voice and the brain. To Hank Williams, before Hank made it big time. Acuff was right.)

So Hank Williams should have whored himself out for $1,000,000.10?

Yes. Of course, he did, and more than that.

[Person Man]

...or he could have whored himself out at that price several times.

[SPC]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 16 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

1.) I'm not 16
2.) Climatologists (really scientist not Al Gore and his cronies) are split on the issue pretty evenly

Ha! Some Corporate big-wigs pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming doesn't exists...

Logic is a two-way street. Who's to say that power-hungry politicians don't pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming does exist?

Also, to Harry, I recommend this

[7,052,770]

Logic is a two-way street. Who's to say that power-hungry politicians don't pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming does exist?

It would be just about impossible for practically the entire scientific community to be bought off.  Believing that kind of conspiracy theory is like believing we haven't walked on the moon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you seriously using George Carlin (who is one of my favorite comedians) in a science-based discussion?

[DownWithTheLeft]

What does Global Warming have to do with Abortion?

The only relevant post in the thread

[SPC]

Logic is a two-way street. Who's to say that power-hungry politicians don't pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming does exist?

It would be just about impossible for practically the entire scientific community to be bought off.  Believing that kind of conspiracy theory is like believing we haven't walked on the moon.

I was using that facetiously in response to FLEM claiming that oil companies were paying skeptics. Also, saying the entire scientific community supports the man-made global warming theory is intellectual slander, since you should know that several scientists are skeptics, and 19,000 of them signed a statement saying that global warming is insignificant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you seriously using George Carlin (who is one of my favorite comedians) in a science-based discussion?
[/quote]

Did you even listen to the video? I have to agree with him that anyone that thinks a species that's been here for >0.00001% of Earth's existance can have a significant effect on its well being is incredibly arrogant.

[7,052,770]

Logic is a two-way street. Who's to say that power-hungry politicians don't pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming does exist?

It would be just about impossible for practically the entire scientific community to be bought off.  Believing that kind of conspiracy theory is like believing we haven't walked on the moon.

I was using that facetiously in response to FLEM claiming that oil companies were paying skeptics. Also, saying the entire scientific community supports the man-made global warming theory is intellectual slander, since you should know that several scientists are skeptics, and 19,000 of them signed a statement saying that global warming is insignificant.

Geez, not this sh**t again...
As I have already explained to you, the Oregon petition is a fraud.  Most of the names are veternarians, high school teachers, or just made up names.  The Scientific American study on the list concluded that only 200 of the "19,000" are legitimate climatologists.  How many times must you knowingly use a lie in your argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you seriously using George Carlin (who is one of my favorite comedians) in a science-based discussion?
[/quote]

Did you even listen to the video? I have to agree with him that anyone that thinks a species that's been here for >0.00001% of Earth's existance can have a significant effect on its well being is incredibly arrogant.
[/quote]
Um, I'm going to listen to the consensus of scientific thought instead of the musings of a comedian...

[SPC]

Logic is a two-way street. Who's to say that power-hungry politicians don't pay some cheap scientific hacks to go out and say Global Warming does exist?

It would be just about impossible for practically the entire scientific community to be bought off.  Believing that kind of conspiracy theory is like believing we haven't walked on the moon.

I was using that facetiously in response to FLEM claiming that oil companies were paying skeptics. Also, saying the entire scientific community supports the man-made global warming theory is intellectual slander, since you should know that several scientists are skeptics, and 19,000 of them signed a statement saying that global warming is insignificant.

Geez, not this sh**t again...
As I have already explained to you, the Oregon petition is a fraud.  Most of the names are veternarians, high school teachers, or just made up names.  The Scientific American study on the list concluded that only 200 of the "19,000" are legitimate climatologists.  How many times must you knowingly use a lie in your argument?

Source please? Also, 200 scientists is still not 0%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you seriously using George Carlin (who is one of my favorite comedians) in a science-based discussion?
[/quote]

Did you even listen to the video? I have to agree with him that anyone that thinks a species that's been here for >0.00001% of Earth's existance can have a significant effect on its well being is incredibly arrogant.
[/quote]
Um, I'm going to listen to the consensus of scientific thought instead of the musings of a comedian...
[/quote]

I presume you are going to ignore epistimology while you blindly trust government-funded scientists?

[MarkWarner08]

Uninformed conservatives: Abortion = murder of unborn children. Global warming doesn't exist, and if it does, it's a nefarious plot by Hollywood, homosexuals, the New York Times, and AL GORE to subvert capitalism.

The notion that anthropogenic climate change exists and is rapidly worsening is supported by 99% of climatologists. The few climatologists who dispute it are either on the Exxon Mobil payroll or are complete buffoons.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

Challenge to all young conservatives: Find one peer-reviewed journal article that presents empirical evidence disputing any human role in global warming.

If you can't do that, please admit that you are on the intellectual short end of the stick.

[Sam Spade]

Quoting from Greenpeace really ruins the substance of your challenge..

[MarkWarner08]

Quoting from Greenpeace really ruins the substance of your challenge..

That's an interesting point you raise. If the source is biased, must we cast away all of its findings as biased in favor of that viewpoint? If you examine the website, you'll discover that the data showing the ties between Exxon Mobil contributions to think tanks that doubt the veracity of  those who support action to prevent  further global warming are irrefutable. Exxon Mobil hasn't denied that they've given millions to groups that seek to undermine the scientific consensus on this issue.

A more reasonable critique could be made against the corruption charge. I disagree that these think tanks are corrupt. Perhaps Exxon Mobil is funding them because they agree with that group's agenda. Opposition to global warming can't simply be marginalized as the byproduct of a quid pro quo agreement between starving academics and greedy oil companies.

[Sam Spade]

Quoting from Greenpeace really ruins the substance of your challenge..

That's an interesting point you raise. If the source is biased, must we cast away all of its findings as biased in favor of that viewpoint? If you examine the website, you'll discover that the data showing the ties between Exxon Mobil contributions to think tanks that doubt the veracity of  those who support action to prevent  further global warming are irrefutable. Exxon Mobil hasn't denied that they've given millions to groups that seek to undermine the scientific consensus on this issue.

A more reasonable critique could be made against the corruption charge. I disagree that these think tanks are corrupt. Perhaps Exxon Mobil is funding them because they agree with that group's agenda. Opposition to global warming can't simply be marginalized as the byproduct of a quid pro quo agreement between starving academics and greedy oil companies.

You have much to learn, young Skywalker...

I am not, at least in this instance, questioning the facts they raise.  I am, rather, questioning the presentation of those facts and the conclusions made based off of those facts, not to mention certain assertions which inflame the preconceived notions that we want to believe.

Besides, who exactly funds Greenpeace, the starving academic community, the men's room attendant at the White House or Barack Obama.  Note that I can raise these questions without necessarily questioning the facts.  But in a subject which, quite frankly, is pretty much all about politics on both sides nowadays - they are questions worth asking.

Nor am I questioning - in the very broad sense - the existence of what you might call "global warming", if we can define it as we should - that during the past 100 years or so, the Earth has warmed.

[MarkWarner08]

Quoting from Greenpeace really ruins the substance of your challenge..

That's an interesting point you raise. If the source is biased, must we cast away all of its findings as biased in favor of that viewpoint? If you examine the website, you'll discover that the data showing the ties between Exxon Mobil contributions to think tanks that doubt the veracity of  those who support action to prevent  further global warming are irrefutable. Exxon Mobil hasn't denied that they've given millions to groups that seek to undermine the scientific consensus on this issue.

A more reasonable critique could be made against the corruption charge. I disagree that these think tanks are corrupt. Perhaps Exxon Mobil is funding them because they agree with that group's agenda. Opposition to global warming can't simply be marginalized as the byproduct of a quid pro quo agreement between starving academics and greedy oil companies.

You have much to learn, young Skywalker...

I am not, at least in this instance, questioning the facts they raise.  I am, rather, questioning the presentation of those facts and the conclusions made based off of those facts, not to mention certain assertions which inflame the preconceived notions that we want to believe.

Besides, who exactly funds Greenpeace, the starving academic community, the men's room attendant at the White House or Barack Obama.  Note that I can raise these questions without necessarily questioning the facts.  But in a subject which, quite frankly, is pretty much all about politics on both sides nowadays - they are questions worth asking.

Nor am I questioning - in the very broad sense - the existence of what you might call "global warming", if we can define it as we should - that during the past 100 years or so, the Earth has warmed.

1. I'm glad that you aren't questioning the facts raised by Greenpeace.

2. Greenpeace is an environmental advocacy group that is funded by individual donors. Those who support Greenpeace likely support its political agenda. This is also true for the Heritage Foundation, which is funded by multinational corporations that support the Foundation's funding of studies backing limited government and less regulation.

 Does Greenpeace have a stake in this debate? Of course it does. But wouldn't you agree that creating fraudulent evidence to back its claims would only undermine its cause?

3. Do you really want to argue against the scientific consensus on global warming? The 1970's global cooling refutation is specious because it wasn't backed by a vast majority of scientists When the typically reticent IPCC sticks its neck out on an issue, one can safely conclude they are as certain as scientists can be of their conclusions.

[SPC]

Uninformed conservatives: Abortion = murder of unborn children. Global warming doesn't exist, and if it does, it's a nefarious plot by Hollywood, homosexuals, the New York Times, and AL GORE to subvert capitalism.

The notion that anthropogenic climate change exists and is rapidly worsening is supported by 99% of climatologists. The few climatologists who dispute it are either on the Exxon Mobil payroll or are complete buffoons.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

Challenge to all young conservatives: Find one peer-reviewed journal article that presents empirical evidence disputing any human role in global warming.

If you can't do that, please admit that you are on the intellectual short end of the stick.

Okay, please answer the following questions, Mr. Warner08:
1. Have you ever considering analyzing the facts for yourself rather than entrusting scientists to do it for you?
2. Have you heard of epistemology, which states that you cannot prove anything, but only disprove it?
3. Is it possible that the scientists have an alterior motive for advocating the man-made global warming theory (e.g. more funding)?
4. Is this the same scientific consensus that thought that eugenics was true and that the Sun revolved around the Earth?
5. Ever heard of the solar theory, which states that sunspot numbers affect global average temperature, a theory that makes more sense given that the graph correlates better and that Mars and Jupiter are also experiencing global warming?
6. Is it possible that global average temperature influences CO2 and not the other way around, which would explain why CO2 has an 800 year delay when graphed next to global average temperature?
7. Are you aware that many former communists are now on the global warming bandwagon, and that many environmentalists despise civilization?

[dead0man]

Does Greenpeace have a stake in this debate? Of course it does. But wouldn't you agree that creating fraudulent evidence to back its claims would only undermine its cause?

That's never stopped Global Warming enthusiasts before.  cite

[Spaghetti Cat]

Uninformed conservatives: Abortion = murder of unborn children.

I'm sorry, but what how would you define abortion?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Global warming continues to be the issue where liberals prove that the best strategy is to scream louder and call your opponent stupid, because when the facts don't back you up, that's all you got

[7,052,770]

Global warming continues to be the issue where liberals prove that the best strategy is to scream louder and call your opponent stupid, because when the facts don't back you up, that's all you got

If the facts are on your side, prove it.  Practically every peer-reivewed scientific study says that global warming is real and caused primarily by humans.  This is a nondisputable fact.  You can't seriously expect anyone to believe there's some huge conspiracy of scientists just lying.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Global warming continues to be the issue where liberals prove that the best strategy is to scream louder and call your opponent stupid, because when the facts don't back you up, that's all you got

If the facts are on your side, prove it.  Practically every peer-reivewed scientific study says that global warming is real and caused primarily by humans.  This is a nondisputable fact.  You can't seriously expect anyone to believe there's some huge conspiracy of scientists just lying.

Harry, if that article you showed me was the best proof you got, then that is alone is reason to show man-made global warming is a farce.  I can't wait for the lawsuit between Gore and the head of TWC.  Hopefully it will put this to bed once and for all, because this time the one who screams loudest will lose.

[Flying Dog]

Global warming continues to be the issue where liberals prove that the best strategy is to scream louder and call your opponent stupid, because when the facts don't back you up, that's all you got

If the facts are on your side, prove it.  Practically every peer-reivewed scientific study says that global warming is real and caused primarily by humans.  This is a nondisputable fact.  You can't seriously expect anyone to believe there's some huge conspiracy of scientists just lying.

Harry, if that article you showed me was the best proof you got, then that is alone is reason to show man-made global warming is a farce.  I can't wait for the lawsuit between Gore and the head of TWC.  Hopefully it will put this to bed once and for all, because this time the one who screams loudest will lose.

You remind me of one of those children who don't like what they here so they plug their ears and go "nanananananananananana....."

[DownWithTheLeft]

Global warming continues to be the issue where liberals prove that the best strategy is to scream louder and call your opponent stupid, because when the facts don't back you up, that's all you got

If the facts are on your side, prove it.  Practically every peer-reivewed scientific study says that global warming is real and caused primarily by humans.  This is a nondisputable fact.  You can't seriously expect anyone to believe there's some huge conspiracy of scientists just lying.

Harry, if that article you showed me was the best proof you got, then that is alone is reason to show man-made global warming is a farce.  I can't wait for the lawsuit between Gore and the head of TWC.  Hopefully it will put this to bed once and for all, because this time the one who screams loudest will lose.

You remind me of one of those children who don't like what they here so they plug their ears and go "nanananananananananana....."

You remind me of the Hitler youth considering the amount of brainwashing you seem to be going through

[War on Want]

Global warming continues to be the issue where liberals prove that the best strategy is to scream louder and call your opponent stupid, because when the facts don't back you up, that's all you got

If the facts are on your side, prove it.  Practically every peer-reivewed scientific study says that global warming is real and caused primarily by humans.  This is a nondisputable fact.  You can't seriously expect anyone to believe there's some huge conspiracy of scientists just lying.

Harry, if that article you showed me was the best proof you got, then that is alone is reason to show man-made global warming is a farce.  I can't wait for the lawsuit between Gore and the head of TWC.  Hopefully it will put this to bed once and for all, because this time the one who screams loudest will lose.

You remind me of one of those children who don't like what they here so they plug their ears and go "nanananananananananana....."

You remind me of the Hitler youth considering the amount of brainwashing you seem to be going through

lolz goldmine