Maybe we should leave our cars running when we aren't using them to produce more CO2 to combat this coming problem?
........... notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities, and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers. You are really slipping up JD....lol
Yeah, Kind of like the huff - poop
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House
Sorry JD, but don't get any ideals.
Here's the most trusted name in the history of printed news (lol) saying that warming has plateaued. Hmmmm....
Boy... this settled science stuff is SO confusing. Being the non-partisan you are Honda, can I count on you to belittle and mock the source for this article as well? LOL...Your NY Times link has nothing to do with your Daily Mail link. The Daily Mail article is about a possible Ice Age due to the Maunder Minimum - solar cycle effects which last occurred 300 years ago.
The NY Times article is about a SLOWDOWN in global warming. It doesn't say anything about an ice age or even that global warming has stopped. The article merely says that global warming is not rising at such a fast pace as it has in the past: "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that." It's not "settled" because scientists don't know the cause of the slowdown. It has nothing to do with sun cycles or an ice age as in the Daily Mail article. And unlike the Maunder Minimum which ended 300 years ago, the last such slowdown occurred between the 1950's and 1970's, after which global warming increased rapidly. So is it "settled" that after this slowdown in global warming ends, there will be another rapid increase in global warming? Do you want to try to make a connection between your two links or do you want to take this advice: If you find yourself in a hole - stop digging.
Gosh a scientific model with 97% accuracy, which is a far cry from the inaccurate global warming models.
-- Modified on 7/11/2015 2:58:56 AM
aily mail is tabloid from the Murdoch media empire. So, nothing is settled amongst the real scientists, only among crackpots
........mouth wash, chocolates, common cold, oral sex etc. I guess JD we should believe this too?
According to Daily News researchers here are the causes of Cancer: Please don't laugh! Bwahaha.. http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/02/19/20-strange-things-the-daily-mail-say-will-cause-cancer/What does that even mean? You can buy every single British newspaper (and quite a few from abroad and/or in foreign languages in some cases) in a British supermarket, it's a comment completely devoid of substance. It also has nothing to do with Murdoch owning it or not; I don't know where this post came from at all.
That's like quoting the Daily Kook as PROOF that Fox lies.
Please give me a fucking break, this thread is starting move well beyond retarded. I am not going down there entire stupid list, but one jumps out at me in particular. "Large amounts of red and processed meat" has been proven to cause all sorts of medical issuesI didn't even attempt to connect the times article to the OP one with regards to global cooling i.e. A new ice age.
Had you been paying attention, rather than playing Mr. Keyboard warrior, you would have realized the The NY Times article backs up my main point of the OP which goes to the science is NOT settled as you libs love to claim. Thanks for playing though.The liberals here didn't even try and argue the information in the links I posted. They didn't want to debate it all. They immediatley jumped to try and "kill the messenger, not the messenger." Not exactly high brow logic.
So when I then use a source that the left loves, and they couldn't refute it, the argument then morphed into the "two links are about different topics" when the key topic of the post was clearly my contention to show that the GW science is not settled. You ripping the libs here for their lack of knowledge about the Brit link was only icing on the cake for me in this thread! LOAnd AF should look up the definition of settled or sarcasm or both.
Rather than attack the facts, tells you just how bad they are losing this argument.
Certainly seems like it shouldn't be:
Oh well, It would not be the first time I have done so. lol
The lefties here LOVE to quote both the Daily Kook and Huff Po, and the righties love to quote Fox. Actually some members here are so biased and so partisan it would appear that they get ALL of their news from these biased sources. It is virtually impossible to have a "discussion" with these types of people and yes, they come from both sides of the aisleI don't see anyone here quoting Fox "repeatedly." The left here is who bring up fox in almost a daily attack. Fine for them to do so if they wish, as tired, cliched and partisan as they want to be, so be it. But oft times they are not criticizing the news division at Fox but there comedians or morning show or their opinion based shows.
I am not sure I have ever linked a Fox News story, but I wouldn't rule it out. Most times I will link to a center/left source to buttress my argument towards my more liberal brethren here. I have used NY Times, Wahington Post, CNN and even MSNBC, mostly. One of the very few times I linked to a right leaning source, I am buried for choosing it, but the Left here will use HuffPost at will, often several times in a single day, and think nothing of it. I don't really care where something comes from nearly as much as what it is they are spouting. But I agree with you, deliberately putting your head in the sand to avoid the other side's point doesn't make bit of damn sense to me.I don't really think anyone here uses a lot of Fox links, but Nuguy uses a LOT of right wing equivalents to the Daily Kook
That said, if we are going to go on pure volume, the number of Huff Po and Daily Kook links outnumbers the number of Fox news and the Daily Kook equivalents by a HUGE margin. That doesn't excuse it when it happens and it does happen a LOT more than it should