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.
Are you suggesting that if I find it suspect, somehow I am not of the same quality as you who believes it completely?
That comment says a lot about you.
One must also take into consideration to the quality of person that would consdier it to be very suspect information.
No perhaps not, but advocating for more Govt control on VERY SUSPECT INFORMATION does.
I doubt that supporting global warming with information makes one a progressive socialist.
You have demonstrated what YOU are Oneil and that is a progressive socialist
It was not I that called it global warming it was the very hacks that*****off the public dole, when it turned out that that there was in fact no warming, you socialisit deemed it climate change much like the global cooling of the 70s
You are such a tool
Oneil we all know what you are, take a break from your socialism and understand likey aint proof
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.
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.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891