Quote:

---

Niki wrote:

The Supremes are batting it around (like you can find much ELSE on the news...sigh...), so why don't we? Maybe not debate the issue of same-sex marriage ITSELF, since we've been there/done that enough times to choke a horse, but make guesses as to what the Supremes will end up doing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:


Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor tells Magons, 'You need to get laid', and claims his reasons for it 'weren't the least bit sexist'. But then he can't/won't answer:


Why, according to you, does Magons, 'need to get laid'? Why are you making assumptions about the length of time since she last had sex, and what does it have to do with what she posted?


It's not personal. It's just war.

---

You need to get laid as well. Obsession is bad, mmmkay ?

---

Quote:

---

Obsession is bad, mmmkay ?

---

Quote:

---

He calls it a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ha ha. I forgot that rap told me I need to get laid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Wow, really sad I missed this circle jerk.

Not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
It's okay, we know you can't muster the courage to answer any of these. We know all you're capable of is snark. Poor wittle wingnut.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
It's okay, we know you can't muster the courage to answer any of these. We know all you're capable of is snark. Poor wittle wingnut.

---

I reject the premise of this thread. This is nothing more than a "prettied up" attack thread IMHO.
And what makes you think you are somehow deserving of answers?

---

Quote:

---

I reject the premise of this thread. This is nothing more than a "prettied up" attack thread IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:


As for the inherent meanness of this thread. To avoid getting mentioned in this thread by me:

1) Be prepared to back up assertions that you've made (especially brash ones)
2) Be prepared to back down if you can't

Doesn't seem that unfair.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I would welcome one. And I certainly wouldn't take it as an 'attack thread'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

It woud be nice to hav a consise list uv 'conservativ/republican' goofball claimz & denialz

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Boy, this thread went to shit in a hurry! The last posts by Rap, Hero, and this "new" person just leave me shaking my head in amazement at such a glut of insanity. Hero leads the pack; writing all that rant, without a single scintilla of evidence, facts, links, cites, or ANYTHING! Hey, anyone can do that and blather on all they want, but unless you show SOMETHING to back it up, you're just making a fool of yourself. I guess you just needed to get that off your chest, but the problem is, it counts for nothing but your opinion without something to back it up...which I'm assuming you don't have.

Seriously:

Quote:

---

For you free speech, democracy, free thought are all good things so long as people say, think, and act as you see fit.

---

Mmm, now that's a salient argument, really intelligent...is he channeling Rap?

Quote:

---

we're the ones that actually make the world work

---

Quote:

---

close mindedness, financial misconduct, sexual hypocrisy

---

That last one is, you are saying, the EXCLUSIVE purvey of the left?!?! Scores of those on the right haven't been found guilty of any of those? Seriously??

And the kicker: America has become so censored, so narrowed, that Firefly couldn't be made today? Are you friggin' JOKING?!

Quote:

---

Much like the End Timers and Y2K nuts... the AGW nut jobs actually believe that storms are getting worse and happen more often as well.

---

Uhhh, Rap is saying the data, the facts, every study out there, DOESN'T show quite clearly that the storms are getting worse? He hasn't heard about all those "hundred-year storms" that have been happening every few years? How does he manage to watch TV or listen to the radio and not hear that? Oh, wait, he keeps himself exclusively to right-wing TV and radio...sorry, silly question.

He won't read it, or will find some reason to discount the source without knowing a thing about it, but what the hell:

Quote:

---

...storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms. http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm]
There's plenty of data backing that up at the link...not that he'd go there.

When 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers (in other words, the guys actually doing the work) endorse the consensus position, and 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming, it might be time to start paying attention, if you're a rational, intelligent human being. Or not, if you work real hard at burying your head in the right-wing sand, I guess.

Quote:

---

climate change is NOT the cause of every storm, draught, tornado, hurricane, flood, or wildfire

---

Omigawd, what a blow! And here we "lefties" have been saying it IS, all along! Oh dear...

Quote:

---

But this is what the Left do, hijack and distort words so that the real meaning gets lost in a maze of confusion and twisting of facts.

---

Yeah, well, that's just Rap...the boy reeeely needs new material...but I do get it, you can't twist facts as long as you don't OFFER any, or believe in any...

We've posted data, with cites and material to back it up. One more time: What have you got? Either put up or shut up--well, no, of course you don't have to shut up, and you never will, but if you don't put up, you don't count. You can call people every name in the book and use every trite, over-used idiocy you want, but unless and until you offer something of SUBSTANCE, you just look foolish.

I'll leave you RWA types to stroke each other joyfully and ramble on incoherently to one another, the "points" you make aren't even worth addressing, they're so totally ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

---

All that proves, if it is indeed true, is that there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

It doesn't prove that these institutions are CORRECT in supporting the theory of man-made climate change.

History of science is replete with examples of scientific institutions being incorrect in the theories they have supported.



-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and because I'm about 95% sure that Rappy is going to come stumbling in any second and start whining about "Cites?", here ya go, even though you steadfastly refuse to produce any such cites for your own idiotic claims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Ok we'll see how this goes.

This is for when you reach a point in a debate with a conservative where you ask a question that they simply can't answer. I invite you to post that question here. Think of it as claiming their scalp... and the idea is that we create a thread filled with pointy needles for puncturing right-wing bubbles...

Here's one:


Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.


ETA: For anyone wanting to use coloured font use the code font color=green inside triangle brackets (these <>). And then the code /font color inside triangle brackets to end the coloured text.

---

Quote:

---

Science and Environmental Policy Project founder S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." [19]

---

Quote:

---

Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.[1] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11,[2] vaccines,[3] genetic modification,[4] Zionism,[5][6] HAARP,[7] global warming,[8][9] Bosnian genocide denialism[10] and David Kelly.[11]


Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi,[12] reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis the site is taking the standard "anti-globalisation" stance against the Western side and falling into the ranks of imperial Russian propaganda instead.

---

Quote:

---

On June 28, 2013, the Russian Government unexpectedly announced a draft law of dissolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) founded in 1724 and establishing a new "public-governmental" organization with the same name. During this reform, all buildings and other property of the Academy will be taken away under control of a government-appointed official.[12] The reform is allegedly authored by Mikhail Kovalchuk, brother of Yury Kovalchuk known as Putin's personal banker.[13] Mikhail Kovalchuk was repeatedly rejected during elections to the Academy.[14] Simultaneously, a new law regulating the status of the new organization was submitted for approval by the Russian Duma (the Parliament of the Russian Federation) and is asked to be approved on the next week. After the acceptance of this law, a liquidation process of the Academy should be completed within three months.

The law puts severe restrictions on the autonomy of academic institutions in Russia and deprives RAS of the control over all of its material assets. All the existing institutions of RAS are offered to move away from the new organization, to subordinate them to a special administrative Government agency, "Agency of Scientific Institutions", and to subject to a selection compliant with certain conditions defined solely by this agency. The functions of this agency are not well-specified in the law.[15]

The draft law, which fundamentally changes the system of science organization in Russia, has been prepared and examined without discussion with the scientific community. Even the public structures created by the Ministry of Education and Science for consultations with the representatives of the scientific community have not been involved in a discussion of the draft law and have not been informed on its existence. The Academy also has not been informed on the existence of the project.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Ok we'll see how this goes.


Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

---

Not sure if AURaptor has replied to this yet - I have not checked the entire thread.
But if any are interested, a plethora of info can be found with search engines using HOAX, MYTH, ANTI, in conjunction with Global warming, plus Climategate.
Plus more fun with "Popular Delusions"

Some of the answer:
Science and Environmental Policy Project
GlobalResearch.ca
Russian Academy of Sciences
FriendsofScience.org
World Natural Health Organization (wnho.org)
Weather Channel (creator of)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:

---

there isn't a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

---

Raptor has just agreed that there is no scientific body or institution which disputes man-made climate change. Until and unless he can provide some factual, verifiable evidence which does dispute man-made climate change, I bekueve that answers the question.

If he chooses to say "I dismiss any and all scientific bodies and institutions because I don't believe in it", that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. Everyone's welcome to their opinion, however wrong. He has merely made it very clear that it is his OPINION, with no factual evidence to back it up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Upon request, Auraptor can't name a scientific body or institution that disputes the theory of man-made climate change.

---

It is difficult to find an agency or organization that disputes the theory of global warming.

I note for the record that it is easy to find former members of organizations that support climate change theories who themselves dispute climate change. The reason is that if a person disputes climate change or seeks to further research that does not presuppose the conclusion that climate change is both happening and caused by man then said person becomes a former member.

There are numerous reports of evidence and conclusions being falisfied or 'adjusted to reflect administration policy'.

You probably will get all blubbery seeking specific examples. One such example is NASA where only former members of the organization are able to dispute the official policy.

You should probably get more specific in your inquiry since the subject breaks down into two distinct areas. First, is climate change happening? Despite the fact that storms, snow, droughts, rain, wind, and such all pre-existed modern times...the only acceptable answer is that these things are far worse now then before. The historical record disproves this, but history is not relevent to the issue since the ONLY acceptable answer predates the scientific or historical inquiry. In other words if the answer is 2 then the question MUST be what is 1+1 or 3-1 or something similar...the question of what is 2+2 is not allowed because it can't possibly equal the answer they've chosen.

The second area of inquiry, however, seems to allow slightly more leeway. This is simply, is man the cause of the climate change? The acceptable answer is yes...obviously. Only man can produce enough CO2 through industry to have caused climate change. But, prior to climate change people studied things like volcanoes, cows, the sun, prior climate change, etc. There are a lot of scientists who already published articles pointing out a lot of things can cause the temps to go up and down and man's influence is negligable at best.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Some of the answer:
1. Science and Environmental Policy Project
2. GlobalResearch.ca
3. Russian Academy of Sciences
4. FriendsofScience.org
5. World Natural Health Organization (wnho.org)
6. Weather Channel (creator of)

---