There are many people I respect on here, so it seems very odd to me when they go so off base with critiques on their own writings.
This from a small group of people whos very existence is based on that likelihood. Not much of a reach to say they have a vested interest in likely FUNDING
oh the hateful oneil has weighed in with a LIKELY. That's not proof its LIKELY thank you very much.
@Tired - You are still missing the point. The majority of climatologists back the notion that climate-change - erroneously labeled as "global warming" - is happening and is likely caused by massive amounts of CO2 injected into the atmosphere by human activity ... Yes, a handful of "experts" (some admitted Bible believers & others hired by industry as "professional refuters") nitpick about causes & effects, but - as is the case with evolution - most evidence falls on the side of the climatologists ... What you don't seem to comprehend (having a brain cloud full of FOX fibs) is that real scientists always leave the door open to further proof that will disprove any theory - but, thus far, none has been offered!
Kendall you have chosen to be obtuse, that's fine. I have made it VERY clear why I take issue with Harry, nice of you to try to carry his water however, good on ya.
Clearly put, if you disagree with the evidence Harry has put forth in regards to climate change....you go after that.
Just so everyone is clear, do you disagree with the conclusions that Harry has made on climate change and global warming?
"I will post what I wish where I wish, got it?"
Most insane and inane people do.
As for his views, it doesn't matter if he doesn't apply science to everything in his life. He has the right to take the tools avaialable to him and arrive with a conclusion.
It is for those that disagree to show how the person is incorrect in their hypothesis and offer up a counter proposal.
If this were a debate platform, Harry would win simply because people seem to be attacking his chosen method to analyse evidence instead of attacking the result.
I actually share his religion or I think I do. I am not denigrating his faith in any way as I too am a Christian. THE POINT is that you cannot be anti science as it applies to creation and THEN call those that are skeptical of climate change anti science deniers, can I make it any clearer?
You of course miss the point again. Its not his stance on Climate or Religion, its the fact that he choses to call those that don't agree on one as Anti Science and on the other side, well its ok. Get a clue pal.
Kendall I could not possibly care less what you think as it applies to my credibility, I will post what I wish where I wish, got it?
"you are a hypocrite and a fraud."
Your opinion means next to nothing in this regard. But what I am trying to do is to keep with the current topic which seems to be global warming/climate change.
Now if you disagree with the science cited in someone's argument...what do you have?
If your whole counter to global warming is that Harry doesn't seem to apply science in ways you think he should...then you are currently on the losing side of the argument.
And I might point out that requiring a person to a standard based on science when it would appear you ignore the science of global warming could make you a hypocrite.
"It does when the phrase ANTI SCIENCE is used twice in the title alone."
Then take it to that thread and leave it out of this one.
If he had titled the thread I BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING DO YOU I would agree with your view on the matter, but when you intentionally try to represent anyone who has doubt about the science as deniers and anti science, you are a hypocrite and a fraud.
Harry my be dishonest and a fraud but I don't think he is stupid. He chose words like Anti Science and Denier as pejoratives and now he has to live with it when I bring up his anti science denier views.
It does when the phrase ANTI SCIENCE is used twice in the title alone. Nice try Kendall
What one's views are in regards to religion has nothing to do with their views on other subjects like Climate Change.
If the topic was about when one accepts or rejects science, then you might have something. But wallowing on what one believes in a religious sense does not refute anything that person has said about Climate Change.
Now you wish to revise and extend your remarks by denying what is right there for all to see.
The very basis of your claimed religion that you feel the need to share with us all the time is by its very nature anti science yet you say I am anti science, that I am afraid, on and on. You are a hypocrite and now you show yourself to be dishonest.
Harry you are little more than a common liar. You used the term ANTI SCIENCE twice in the title of that thread alone. Now you were referring to people behind a campaign any fool can see through your BS
We’ve been over this before, Tiredofit. Still, I’m happy to repeat myself for the sake of those who haven’t yet heard it.
I’m won’t call, and have never called, anybody “anti-science,” even though people may conduct campaigns that denigrate some area of scientific research or other.
Here’s why I won’t call anybody anti-science:
Nobody is unequivocally anti-science. We all believe in science. For example, when we drive our cars, we trust our lives to science. We believe that our tires have a high coefficient of friction with the road surface because scientists tell us it does. We trust them when they say our tires will stop our cars and allow them to stay on the road in turns. Therefore, it’s stupid to say anybody who drives is anti-science.
Thanks for giving me another opportunity to display reasonableness.
Just as I thought. NONE
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891