i take a true scientist’s approach, where conclusions aren’t made by throwing out wapo articles, but instead both sides of ghe science.
lets start here
think independently. remember this whole current religiousy cult movement started in politics first with idiot blowhard al gore.
that should trigger a scientist’s spidey sense right off
Clearly it triggers you, our foremost global warming expert.
my point is clearly that i dont purport to be an expert
what a fail of a post
Agreed. Clearly you are not an expert. Nor do you have a grasp of the literature. You have nothing to contribute.
FYI, when we post links to scientific papers or NASA or anyone with scientific credentials you guys dismiss that as well. Makes no difference to you guys.
3 Likes
true science considers all data and positions
i dont claim to be an expert. that is not a reason to dismiss my position.
perfect post! shows how the left shuts out any opposing views
and they claim they are all about science. haha
I like how a claim of lack (not actually) of science literature being posted is followed up by the “scientific approach” of linking to the noted scientific journal Forbes with an academic paper by Alex Epstein:
Alex Epstein is the author of the New York Times best-selling book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an expert on energy and industrial policy. Called “most original thinker of the year” by political commentator John McLaughlin, he champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and has changed the way thousands of people think about energy. He has risen to prominence as the nation’s leading free-market energy debater, promoting a philosophy that is “anti-pollution but pro-development.” He challenges many popularly held ideas about energy, industry, and the environment, including the big picture benefits (and costs) of fossil fuels and nuclear power. He draws on cutting-edge research and original insights to offer an alternate perspective on the energy debate and shares eye-opening thoughts into how fossil fuels and technology will improve the lives of people – safely, cleanly, and effectively – for years to come.
1 Like
That’s odd. Southern California temperatures have generally been below normal this June.
I didn’t realize this was a political debate. But you have the right to make the suggestion.
It’s been in the 90’s with occasional rain and thunderstorms here in South Florida. Darn tropical summers.
The planet isn’t being destroyed and life here will be just fine until God decides to pull the plug.
God not men.
Where have you been? The global climate debate has been political for over twenty years.
There is also an intense heat wave occuring in Alaska. (I hope that Samm is keeping cool.)
Those records are for the Southcentral area (around Anchorage) and the northern panhandle (around Juneau.) We have not broken any temperature records this summer here in the Interior. The highs have been between about 70 and 85 for the last month or so, which is right on normal for June.
Note the record broken in Juneau was set 110 years ago … long before “global warming” was even thought of.
Not my point Sam. Why should it be?
Even you’re author agrees that there’s “mild” climate change and that man effects the environment.
Why would it be what? Your point? Don’t ask me, it was your point.
On the other hand, global warming/climate change has been a political topic for more than twenty years. Why would you expect it not to be in this thread?
really?
how much does “man” affect it?
