Are you saying that since Sunnis and Shia kill each other it is OK for Israeli Jews to kill Palestinians?
No, he's saying that these other people are killing each other, but for some reason only Israel gets criticized.
By the way, border disputes are basically between two countries that recognise each other (generally) but have never formalised the drawing of their borders. Israeli settlements are built on land beyond the recognised borders, so it's apartheid, it's occupation.
What? Occupation equals Apartheid? You are not making sense.
They were both there first. And those "native" Americans that Euopean settlers displaced? Yeah, they brutally murdered the previous, less tehcnologically advanced sotne age tribes when they colonized America in turn. Funny old world.
Basically they're attacked by crude rockets of questionable effectiveness and they respond with military grade weapons. The number of Israelis killed by these rockets since 2001 is 31. I'm pretty sure that they've killed more innocent Palestinians than
Being attacked with crude rockets still means you're being attacked. Thanks to measures by the Israeli government, they have managed to minimize casualties. Hamas, on the other hand, will use its own civilians as human shields to maximize human losses when Israel responds to attacks.
Apartheid wall? Not sure I follow you. I thought the wall was to protect Israeli citizens against foreigners who want to attack them. Are you saying that they are building the wall to separate some of Israel's citizens from others?
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to complain about others throwing terms around when you are throwing "Apartheid" around?
Yes, citations are indeed needed. Claims were made. Those claims require proof. "Some IPCC report" is not a citation. Stop stalling. Put up or shut up.
Again, he claimed that the science said something. I want citations. I then want the data he's basing his claim about what actually happened on.
As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant.
I want those citations. Enough silly excuses. Put up or shut up.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but Al Gore is not a scientist. What he says is irrelevant to what the actual science shows. Bashing Al Gore to attack the science is insane, but is of course exactly what one would expect from a denialist.
You seem to be unable to tell the difference between politics and science. You even mention claimed comments from the media and seem to think that it somehow disproves the science! Completely unable to tell the difference. Once again exactly what one would expect from a denialist.
Do I think someone must publish a paper for something to be true? I think someone must publish a scientific, peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to have credibility. The wilder the claim, the more important that it is properly published.
And as a typical denialist, you think just looking out the window makes you a climate expert. LOL.
in this video an MIT professor of metereology shows that even a supporter of AGW theory admits that the data on sea level is inconclusive
That video shows Richard Lindzen. He's a known denier who ignores his own research (which has not countered the consensus position) when making public speeches.
Where is his research on sea levels? He's an atmospheric physicist!
Why are you referring to someone who is making statements that are demonstrably false, and who hasn't even published any relevant scientific papers on sea level rise?
Correlation does not equal causation.
So? Who claimed that it did? Your ignorance is amazing. You really have no idea what the science actually says, do you? You really think the science says "correlation equals causation"?
On the contrary, he made specific claims about what the science says and what actually happened. I want sources for his claims about what the science says, and sources for his claims about what really happened.
He made the claims. His burden of proof. Stop trying to dishonestly distort the discussion, denier.
I think the entire point of linking to the Global Cooling website was that maybe, sometime in the not so distant future, the same exact text will appear in front of all the global warming hysteria which is going on today.
The hysteria here is from the denialists who think the entire scientific community has joined forces with all governments in the entire world in a massive conspiracy to enslave us all. Now that's hysteria.
The exact same text will not appear in front of texts referring to global warming because there is a clear scientific consensus that it is warming.
It seems to me what the author was advocating was science, not alarmist statements that time is running out, the world is going to end.
I don't know about anyone who's talking about the world ending. Except hysterical denialists of course.
Fact is Global Warming advocates do just that - they advocate their point of view by dishonestly altering scientific data to suit their foregone conclusions.
They do not.
Anybody who uses the word 'denialist' is an idiot
I disagree. Someone who uses the word "denialist" is someone who has been exposed to denialist lies all too often, and recognizes a denialist when he sees one, and calls him out.
Are you a bit thick? I'm not a scientist, so I'm referring to this in layman terms. I'm specifically telling you the difference between how the terms are used by scientists, and by non-scientists. Most people will refer to scientific theories as facts, in layman terms, and that's fine.
Lindzen might be a good scientist, but he's a lying scumbag who doesn't care about the science when he makes public speeches. The fact is that his science has failed to refute the consensus position, so if he was honest he should not have been spreading denialist propaganda. But he ignores his own science and lies to people. That makes him a scumbag. He might be a good scientist, but he's a scumbag who ignores his own science.
That argument by Lindzen is not a scientific argument. Why would a useless, idiotic comment like that from Lindzen deserve a scientific response?
No, my post is not the equvalent of saying that cyanide is not deadly because it only kills cells. You are just another ignorant denialist who can't tell the difference between weather and climate. And indeed, it seems you can't tell the difference between a single cell and a complete human being either. Epic fail.
Economics is a better argument than aesthetics, or crying wolf.
So basically, you are saying that you don't care about scientific facts, only the economics? At least you are being honest about your science denial...
So even if your figure of 97% is correct, the other 3% are politically motivated?
I'm not sure, but I know about one specific example: Dr. Richard Lindzen. While his public position is one of skepticism towards the consensus, his actual research has failed to weaken the consensus position. So while he speaks up against the consensus in his political speeches, he has no support for that position in the research he carries out. I have no idea why he does not pay attention to the science when making public statements, but he does.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's saying that these other people are killing each other, but for some reason only Israel gets criticized.
What? Occupation equals Apartheid? You are not making sense.
[citation needed]
Huh? You are trolling, right?
Being attacked with crude rockets still means you're being attacked. Thanks to measures by the Israeli government, they have managed to minimize casualties. Hamas, on the other hand, will use its own civilians as human shields to maximize human losses when Israel responds to attacks.
Apartheid wall? Not sure I follow you. I thought the wall was to protect Israeli citizens against foreigners who want to attack them. Are you saying that they are building the wall to separate some of Israel's citizens from others?
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to complain about others throwing terms around when you are throwing "Apartheid" around?
What walled-off ghettos are you referring to?
I thought the fence was in the West Bank, not Gaza?
How so? And who are these "global warming alarmists"?
Nope. Wrong again, denier.
Not sure why you are being modded down. I predict that your prediction will be spot on. Deniers are quite predictable.
Claim: "But the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed."
Please point to these original claims with a specific reference. Please point to your source for the actual sea level rise.
Claim: "The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would."
Please point to these original claims with a specific reference. Please point to your source for the actual temperature rise.
Claim: "And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either."
Please point to where it was claimed that the arctic would be ice free next year with a specific reference.
If you can't fulfill any of these requests, I have hereby proven you to be a dishonest, lying denialist science-hater.
Yes, citations are indeed needed. Claims were made. Those claims require proof. "Some IPCC report" is not a citation. Stop stalling. Put up or shut up.
Again, he claimed that the science said something. I want citations. I then want the data he's basing his claim about what actually happened on.
As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant.
I want those citations. Enough silly excuses. Put up or shut up.
Scientists did not warn about a coming ice age in the 70s. Your ignorance is exposed again.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but Al Gore is not a scientist. What he says is irrelevant to what the actual science shows. Bashing Al Gore to attack the science is insane, but is of course exactly what one would expect from a denialist.
You seem to be unable to tell the difference between politics and science. You even mention claimed comments from the media and seem to think that it somehow disproves the science! Completely unable to tell the difference. Once again exactly what one would expect from a denialist.
Do I think someone must publish a paper for something to be true? I think someone must publish a scientific, peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to have credibility. The wilder the claim, the more important that it is properly published.
And as a typical denialist, you think just looking out the window makes you a climate expert. LOL.
That video shows Richard Lindzen. He's a known denier who ignores his own research (which has not countered the consensus position) when making public speeches.
Where is his research on sea levels? He's an atmospheric physicist!
Why are you referring to someone who is making statements that are demonstrably false, and who hasn't even published any relevant scientific papers on sea level rise?
So? Who claimed that it did? Your ignorance is amazing. You really have no idea what the science actually says, do you? You really think the science says "correlation equals causation"?
On the contrary, he made specific claims about what the science says and what actually happened. I want sources for his claims about what the science says, and sources for his claims about what really happened.
He made the claims. His burden of proof. Stop trying to dishonestly distort the discussion, denier.
The hysteria here is from the denialists who think the entire scientific community has joined forces with all governments in the entire world in a massive conspiracy to enslave us all. Now that's hysteria.
The exact same text will not appear in front of texts referring to global warming because there is a clear scientific consensus that it is warming.
I don't know about anyone who's talking about the world ending. Except hysterical denialists of course.
They do not.
I disagree. Someone who uses the word "denialist" is someone who has been exposed to denialist lies all too often, and recognizes a denialist when he sees one, and calls him out.
Correction: That's $1,000,000 that wasn't fraudulently stolen by the movie industry using Hollywood Accounting.
Are you a bit thick? I'm not a scientist, so I'm referring to this in layman terms. I'm specifically telling you the difference between how the terms are used by scientists, and by non-scientists. Most people will refer to scientific theories as facts, in layman terms, and that's fine.
Lindzen might be a good scientist, but he's a lying scumbag who doesn't care about the science when he makes public speeches. The fact is that his science has failed to refute the consensus position, so if he was honest he should not have been spreading denialist propaganda. But he ignores his own science and lies to people. That makes him a scumbag. He might be a good scientist, but he's a scumbag who ignores his own science.
That argument by Lindzen is not a scientific argument. Why would a useless, idiotic comment like that from Lindzen deserve a scientific response?
So where's the exaggeration by scientists? I see a bunch of newspaper articles, that's all.
No, my post is not the equvalent of saying that cyanide is not deadly because it only kills cells. You are just another ignorant denialist who can't tell the difference between weather and climate. And indeed, it seems you can't tell the difference between a single cell and a complete human being either. Epic fail.
So basically, you are saying that you don't care about scientific facts, only the economics? At least you are being honest about your science denial...
I'm not sure, but I know about one specific example: Dr. Richard Lindzen. While his public position is one of skepticism towards the consensus, his actual research has failed to weaken the consensus position. So while he speaks up against the consensus in his political speeches, he has no support for that position in the research he carries out. I have no idea why he does not pay attention to the science when making public statements, but he does.
I notice that you failed to address any of his points. Personal attack? No, he pointed out how your arguments are bogus and wrong.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]