Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

    Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
    I see. I ask where you come up with 10 M scientists on record for supporting AGW and you reply with casting dispersions on the 10,000's of scientists who have come out against AGW.

    Are all scientific organizations on record against AGW also not legitimate? Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    Only organizations for AGW are legitimate. Gotcha.
    Well since the petition didn't give a sample set it would be presumed that they could have asked anyone... I showed you where 10m Scientists came from you have again show diddle..

    So because you still can't show a peer reviewed articles... Pesky actually asking for actual research... sorry about that...

    So I looked at your list and picked at random (you will have to rely on my honesty here) and saw David Legates (i think the Center for Climatic Research should make his view interesting)
    Here is his answer:
    Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[9]
    The declaration states:
    "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
    So Global warming isn't happening cause God told him...


    Lets look at other signatories:
    scientists and medical doctors like Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, and author of Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor); Dr. David Legates (Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware); This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."

    The first guy on the list:
    Khabibullo Abdusamatov
    In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

      Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
      What 97% claim are you saying is false? Because I have been asking for peer reviewed article for three pages...
      You want peer reviewed articles that support the skeptic side of this issue? No problem. How about 1100 of them. Here you go.

      Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

        Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
        I showed you where 10m Scientists came from
        No you did not. You wrote about peer reviewed articles. Show me the link to 10 million scientists on record explicitly supporting man-made global warming. You cannot b/c it does not exist.

        On the other hand there are well over 100,000 scientists officially on record explicitly rejecting man-made global warming. The Oregon Petition is one site with over 30,000. Then there is the American Chemical Society, American Chemical Society members revolting against their editor for pro AGW views | Watts Up With That?, American Meterological Society, Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics - Forbes, and the list continues to grow as I have already posted.

        (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

        Originally posted by Brexx View Post
        You want peer reviewed articles that support the skeptic side of this issue? No problem. How about 1100 of them. Here you go.

        Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
        This has already been repeatedly posted. He will continue to deny peer reviewed articles in opposition to global warming exist.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

          Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
          It is inspiring how Leftists can go from one topic to another in support of their nefarious world wide socialist utopia without admitting any topic claims were proven to be factually incorrect.
          1. Remember the coming Ice Age in the 1970's?
          2. Remember population explosion predictions of the 1970's?
          3. Remember the hole in the ozone layer?
          4. Remember birth defect claims from dirty water and dirty air?
          5. Remember renaming global warming, climate change to catch both tails of change?


          Now you post about waste, in general. Leftists are chicken little, the sky is falling and only by accepting world wide socialist utopia and do away with freedom and capitalism, the greatest inventions to meet the needs of people, do we have any hope of surviving.
          What have I not denied that is factually incorrect? Global warming? The planet IS warming. I thought "liberals" were trying to argue that global warming is a product of man's misuse of the planet's resources. Notice I wasn't arguing this, I was simply saying that our use of coal and other power sources impact our environment negatively and that we don't know exactly how much damage is being to the environment. And how exactly will having more nuclear power plants (the only thing I advocated for in my post) create this "nefarious world wide socialist utoia"? And why are you calling me leftist? Because I'm against wastefulness whether it's wasteful spending or wasteful use of natural resources. I thought conservatives are the ones who prided themselves on being less wasteful?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

            Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
            No you did not. You wrote about peer reviewed articles. Show me the link to 10 million scientists on record explicitly supporting man-made global warming. You cannot b/c it does not exist.

            On the other hand there are well over 100,000 scientists officially on record explicitly rejecting man-made global warming. The Oregon Petition is one site with over 30,000. Then there is the American Chemical Society, American Chemical Society members revolting against their editor for pro AGW views | Watts Up With That?, American Meterological Society, Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics - Forbes, and the list continues to grow as I have already posted.

            (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ



            This has already been repeatedly posted. He will continue to deny peer reviewed articles in opposition to global warming exist.
            I'm not sure about the 10 million mark but apparently 66% of scientific studies do not take a stance on global warming (which tells me many studies show the causes for global warming are inconclusive). However, the majority of studies that do take a stance agree on manmade global warming. This does not mean that these studies reject that there are natural causes to global warming as well.

            97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?

            Yes, anyone who claims 97% of scientists believe global warming is caused by man is absolutely wrong. 97% of scientific papers taking a stance on global warming believe it is at least in part caused by man.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

              Originally posted by AJG View Post
              What have I not denied that is factually incorrect? Global warming? The planet IS warming.
              The planet has been cooling since 1998 and a whole thread here covers this in detail.

              Originally posted by AJG View Post
              I thought "liberals" were trying to argue that global warming is a product of man's misuse of the planet's resources.
              No. Just the lack of those resources being controlled and taxed on a global scale.

              Originally posted by AJG View Post
              Notice I wasn't arguing this, I was simply saying that our use of coal and other power sources impact our environment negatively and that we don't know exactly how much damage is being to the environment.
              You are that kind of passive aggressive Liberal who plays word games. There is an implied baseline of environment that any change is considered negative. Prove me wrong. Tell me how life forms can positively impact the environment, including human life?

              (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

              Originally posted by AJG View Post
              97% of scientific papers taking a stance on global warming believe it is at least in part caused by man.
              This has been refuted many times on this thread. Yet you keep saying it AS IF it is an uncontested matter of fact.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                This has been refuted many times on this thread. Yet you keep saying it AS IF it is an uncontested matter of fact.
                There have been many links showing me there are many many scientists who are skeptical of the cause of global warming. I've been searching this thread, but I can't seem to find one that directly contradicts the figure that says 97% of scientific papers taking a stance on global warming believe it is at least in part caused by man. Notice we are talking about specifically scientific papers, not scientists.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                  Originally posted by Brexx View Post
                  You want peer reviewed articles that support the skeptic side of this issue? No problem. How about 1100 of them. Here you go.

                  Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
                  Fraud...

                  Checked this one in the middle as a spot sheck:
                  Climate Change: Beyond Kyoto
                  (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 5, pp. 763-766, September 2005)

                  She very much pro climate change...

                  Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
                  (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 43, pp. 124-127, August 2002)
                  - V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich

                  Pro AGW...


                  Not bothering after that... The site starts with a few boys bought by the Oil companies and then starts quoting pro AGW articles as Anti...

                  Complete Scam... You should be embarassed

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                    Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                    Fraud...

                    Checked this one in the middle as a spot sheck:
                    Climate Change: Beyond Kyoto
                    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 5, pp. 763-766, September 2005)

                    She very much pro climate change...

                    Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
                    (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 43, pp. 124-127, August 2002)
                    - V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich

                    Pro AGW...


                    Not bothering after that... The site starts with a few boys bought by the Oil companies and then starts quoting pro AGW articles as Anti...

                    Complete Scam... You should be embarassed
                    You didn't read the preface. You should be embarrassed - and you should learn how to spell.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                      Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                      Fraud...

                      Checked this one in the middle as a spot sheck:
                      Climate Change: Beyond Kyoto
                      (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 5, pp. 763-766, September 2005)

                      She very much pro climate change...

                      Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
                      (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 43, pp. 124-127, August 2002)
                      - V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich

                      Pro AGW...


                      Not bothering after that... The site starts with a few boys bought by the Oil companies and then starts quoting pro AGW articles as Anti...

                      Complete Scam... You should be embarassed
                      This is funny, your responses here look like you did a copy and paste from the link about how people were likely to challenge the papers linked.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                        Originally posted by AJG View Post
                        There have been many links showing me there are many many scientists who are skeptical of the cause of global warming.
                        Are you conceding how many scientists are on record opposing AGW?

                        Originally posted by AJG View Post
                        Notice we are talking about specifically scientific papers, not scientists.
                        Appeal to Majority. So your theory is a few people generating lots of fraudulent papers means ...

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                          Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                          Are you conceding how many scientists are on record opposing AGW?



                          Appeal to Majority. So your theory is a few people generating lots of fraudulent papers means ...
                          Conceding seems to imply that I ever believed there weren't a lot of scientists who are skeptical of global warming.

                          And deferring to the knowledge of a bunch of scientists seems like a poor example of appeal to majority. Prove to me that those papers were written by only a few scientists and that they are fraudulent.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                            Originally posted by AJG View Post
                            Conceding seems to imply that I ever believed there weren't a lot of scientists who are skeptical of global warming.
                            Again, you are hiding in the shadows, not making explicit what you say.

                            Originally posted by AJG View Post
                            And deferring to the knowledge of a bunch of scientists seems like a poor example of appeal to majority. Prove to me that those papers were written by only a few scientists and that they are fraudulent.
                            That is not the proof needed to reach a logical conclusion. Given, so many scientists are on record against global warming - so many more than on record for it - referring to the papers of a much smaller group who may write more is an Appeal to Majority. As is typical Liberals keep changing their criteria. First it was the # of scientists; now it is the number of papers. I do not have the time to look into the details but I strongly doubt the papers collectively say what has been characterized what they say. Have you read these papers? Can you site say half a dozen conclusions from the body of them?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                              Again, you are hiding in the shadows, not making explicit what you say.



                              That is not the proof needed to reach a logical conclusion. Given, so many scientists are on record against global warming - so many more than on record for it - referring to the papers of a much smaller group who may write more is an Appeal to Majority. As is typical Liberals keep changing their criteria. First it was the # of scientists; now it is the number of papers. I do not have the time to look into the details but I strongly doubt the papers collectively say what has been characterized what they say. Have you read these papers? Can you site say half a dozen conclusions from the body of them?
                              You seem to think that just because I believe that global warming is partly caused by man, that I am not skeptical of the alarmists' predictions. I am very skeptical. I think recent global is also natural. This global warming issue could very well not very serious at all. However, I think it's impossible to know how much shifting temperatures is due to natural causes. While we sit around taking no cautionary measures, we continue testing how resilient nature is, cutting down forests, clearing habitats so we can mine for resources, polluting water, air, and even our cities. Even if the world doesn't fall into chaos like the alarmists believe, I don't think any good can come from what we're doing both environmentally and economically. If I had to propose anything for the United States, it would be to move away from coal and natural gasses, and that starts with more nuclear power plants and electric cars. As a preventative measure more than anything, what in the world is unreasonable about that?

                              And regarding scientists who take a stance on global warming, here's a good article for that:

                              Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

                              According to the article:

                              36% of scientists believe humans are the main cause of global warming
                              24% of scientists believe nature is the main cause of global warming
                              32% of scientists believe both nature and humans are the cause of global warming with varying degrees of skepticism of its impact on human life

                              I think you're confusing skepticism with outright denial. The majority of scientists believe humans are in part to blame for rises in temperatures. Just because a person believes humans are causing rises in temperatures that doesn't make them alarmists. And just because a person is skeptical of global warming that doesn't mean they are denying that man is partially to blame. Not every person has to be an extremist.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                                Originally posted by AJG View Post
                                Not every person has to be an extremist
                                But that is the politics of the alarmists - global control of energy by force to achieve socialist utopia.

                                Originally posted by AJG View Post
                                I think you're confusing skepticism with outright denial. The majority of scientists believe humans are in part to blame for rises in temperatures.
                                Not from the links I have repeatedly posted. What part of global warming is mans fault? This is the very first question I asked alarmists over a decade, how do you determine the proportion of causal agents? The fact is there is no global warming as what we have seen is within normal variation. So, there can be no part of what does not exist that is mans fault.

                                Originally posted by AJG View Post
                                However, I think it's impossible to know how much shifting temperatures is due to natural causes.
                                Thanks for being honest. So, you admit you have no way of knowing the part of global warming - that does not exist - is mans fault.

                                Originally posted by AJG View Post
                                You seem to think that just because I believe that global warming is partly caused by man, that I am not skeptical of the alarmists' predictions. I am very skeptical.
                                You can say you are skeptical in theory but not in practice. In practice, you are an alarmist.

                                Originally posted by AJG View Post
                                While we sit around taking no cautionary measures
                                Only an alarmist would take cautionary measures for something that is not a problem and it is not known how much the cautionary measures will help.

                                Liberals often try to make it seem their radical desires to completely change the social order that has so successfully met the needs of man over the centuries is so reasonable and avoids risk. This does not hold up to scrutiny. Liberals like you turn a blind eye to the risk to freedom of embracing socialist ideology.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X