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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Name one person whom I called anti-science, Tiredofit.
"Harry believes that God..."
God and Judeo-christian beliefs are not the topic.
Either you have evidence to counter Harry's positions on global warming or you do not.
Simple as that.
Oneill look up "hate".Who hates gays here? Or the other people you mention? You have more venom than anyone else here, so it must be you.
Oneill try conversing without your security blankets, Fox and Limbaugh, sometime. You would be speechless.
Poor oneill. Most people understand that Robertson had a perfect right to state his opinion. Liberals hate freedom of speech.
By the way, over 1million signed up for health care, yes. And over 3.3 million lost theirs. Ain't that wonderful? And how many of the 1 million were Medicaid? Where are the young big money policies that are supposed to finance this scam?
“how old is the earth. Were Adam and Eve the first two people in the garden of eden”
Glad to answer your questions, Tiredofit, even though you refuse to answer mine. I aim for forthrightness.
I don’t know how old the earth is. Do you?
The Bible says God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. I’m not sure it says they were the first humanoid forms there. Do you know?
I agree with Kendall—your questions have nothing to do with the topic. You’re just trying to trap me. Nevertheless, I’m not afraid to answer your questions. Are you afraid to answer mine?
@Tired- and in what way does those question have to do with the topic Harry is talking about?
The topic is about the science and global warming/climate change.
“Anthropology Geology Climatology Harry denies two out of three.”
That statement is not true.
"@Tired - If you had even the slightest understanding of CO2 induced climate-change, you should be aware by now that it is the warming of ocean currents (particularly in the Pacific) that affects weather patterns."
He can't do that, O'neill. To him, it's a "political agenda, not a scientific discussion." He admits that he doesn't consider scientific fact relevant to the discussion.
"Unthinking, oneill, you are surely one of the most active liars."
You'd know! After all who said there isn't any warming at all when it comes to the climate of this planet.
Takes a liar to know a liar and all that!
Unthinking, oneill, you are surely one of the most active liars. What a nut. I would be for slavery and that other stuff? Lol I bet I have more minority friends than you do.
And now, thousands of hurting democrats know it was, and is, right to repeal it. Better listen to Manchin, folks.
Of course though, to really know if Obamacare is a success or not, we have to give it a few years.
History will be the judge and if the average American is more healthy 20 years from now due to Obamacare, then it will be deemed a success.
Well, it is hot air oneill Sunday again. Wonder who cares what he thinks about Fox News and republicans.
He also mentions people "futilely" trying to sabotage obamacare. I believe the records show that obama is doing a fine job of that himself. What a people hurting mess he has made.
65 years old was too young. My condolences to the family.
My sincerest condolences to the family of Editor James Smith.
I,too, am very sorry about Editor Smith. My sincere sympathy goes to his family.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891