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 aisleMaybe 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.
I 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.
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/
2. WINE: Drinking just a small glass of wine a day can more than double the risk of cancer, a study claims. It says that consuming just one 125ml glass of wine increases the chance of developing mouth and throat cancer by 168 per cent.
3. A COLD: The common cold could be a major cause of childhood cancer, a new study claims. Researchers claim that an infection during pregnancy or in early childhood could leave children more susceptible to cancers like leukaemia or brain tumours.
4. DEODORANT: New research suggests that the aluminium in many anti-perspirants has a potential link with breast cancer. Here, a leading breast cancer specialist explains why he explains why he suggests avoiding the products.
5. CHIPS: Parents are being urged to stop giving their children chips amid fears they dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer. Serving under-fives chips just once a week raises their risk of breast cancer by 27 per cent, shocking new research has shown
6. ORAL SEX: Oral sex raises your risk of throat cancer scientists have warned. A new study found the sex act can pass on the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can trigger a specific type of throat cancer in both men and women
7. VITAMIN E: Vitamin E supplements may raise the risk of lung cancer, doctors have warned. A study of more than 77,000 people found that taking moderate to high doses of vitamin E led to a ‘significant’ increase in risk of the cancer that kills on Briton every 15 minutes.
8. SAUSAGES AND BURGERS: A red dye used in sausages and burgers is being banned because it could cause cancer, the European Commission said today. The move will come into force within days
9. SOUP: People who regularly have soup with a high salt content could be increasing their risk of stomach cancer, according to an expert.
10. HAIR DYE: Women who use permanent hair dye may be putting themselves at increased risk of bladder cancer. If you have used hair dye for at least 15 years, the risk is three times greater, says new research
11. MOUTHWASH: There is now ‘sufficient evidence’ that mouthwashes containing alcohol contribute to the increased risk of cancer in the mouth, according to a scientist.
12. SUN CREAM: Sun creams could raise the risk of getting skin cancer, warn experts. Although they help prevent sunburn, lotions fail to block out the ultraviolet rays which can cause the disease
13. PRINGLES, HULA-HOOPS & PRINCE CHARLES’ ORGANIC CRISPS: An organic product sold under Prince Charles’s Duchy Originals brand has been found to contain elevated levels of a cancer causing chemical.
14. X-RAYS: Diagnostic X-rays are linked to a small raised risk of cancer, according to researchers. The radiation could be the cause of 700 cancer cases per year in Britain
15. TALCUM POWDER: Women who use talcum powder every day to keep fresh are 40 per cent more likely to develop ovarian cancer, according to alarming research.
16. MOISTURISERS: Moisturisers used by millions of women every day may be increasing their risk of skin cancer, scientists have warned.
17. MOBILE PHONES: Mobile phones can take as little as ten minutes to trigger changes in the brain associated with cancer, scientists claimed yesterday. They found even low levels of radiation from handsets interfere with the way brain cells divide
18. RED MEAT: Eating large amounts of red and processed meat leaves you at greater risk of cancer, a major report has warned. One in ten cases of both lung and bowel cancer could be prevented if people cut down on beef, lamb, pork, sausages, ham and bacon, scientists say
19.TOOTH WHITENER: Dentists are warning the public over the proposed sale of super-strength tooth whitener linked to cancer. Under European Commission plans, the limit on concentration levels of bleach in over-the-counter products will rise 60 times
20. CHOCOLATES AND BAGGED SNACKS: Chocolates and bagged snacks are being pulled from shop shelves after potential cancer-causing toxins were found in a batch of rice flour
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 issues
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.
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! LO
And 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:
I don't know, I don't understand how anyone reads something so plainly biased; all you do is reinforce your own narrow view of the world, no matter which side you're on. Regardless of politics both personal and public, I don't get the reasoning behind not wanting to see both sides to a story. It just strikes me as willful ignorance in some fashion.
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 aisle
I 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