1 - 10 Next
Hmmm... let's see: 1. Obama unilaterally acts in defiance of existing law on immigration and declares 4 to 5 million illegals exempt from deportation. 2. Obama continues to remind Congress that he has a pen and a phone and will act by executive action on anything he deems them negligent based upon HIS ideology... NOT the will of the majority. 3. Obama pledges his willingness to find common ground with Congress... while he threatens to veto anything contrary to his whim. In response, Boehner invites Netanyahu to address Congress without first asking His Majesty Obama for permission... and according to the MSM, it is Boehner who upset the apple cart. Yep, "normalcy" reigns in D.C., thanks to the Ministry of Propaganda, aka, MSM.
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 2:00 PM
In answer to my question: "3. Assuming everything pro-AGW believers is accurate, what is the global solution(s) to reverse the effects and how will you get the entire globe to put this plan into action?" Michael_Hillinger responded: "3. Don't know. I do know that coming up with a plan is made more difficult when you deny there is a problem." ------------------------------ If you want people to fervently believe there is a problem and that there is a potential solution, perhaps it would be best to begin by not making it so easy for opponents to poke holes in the science and especially to point out the hypocrisy of the leaders of the movement. True science is to propose a hypothesis and set about DIS-proving it... not the other way around. As long as you have so-called scientists convinced in the hypothesis that man-made global climate change exists and that the consequences of such will be "bad"... and their goal is to PROVE they are correct... you have a built-in bias that human nature cannot overcome. Anything else is junk science, no matter how many "experts" say the opposite.
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 12:41 PM
I appreciate your reply. "Leaders" of your AGW theory have been predicting extreme changes for a couple of decades with about a 3% accuracy. How many of Al Gore's predictions (supposedly based upon the best minds in science) come true? And what happened to the coming "ice age" we were promised by the climate experts just 40 years ago? Since I believe human activity is just as natural as those of birds and fish, I am quite confident that humans will continue to adapt to changes in the environment. It is only supreme human arrogance that believes we can control the climate without producing a plethora of unintended consequences. There are many man-made calamities that exist in the present day world which are far more critical to our continued existence than global climate change.
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 11:21 AM
Michael_Hillinger, As often as I've asked, I can't ever get intellectually honest answers to the following questions from believers in AGW. Perhaps you can give it a whirl? 1. What is the ideal global average temperature, and who decided it? 2. Why would a modest global temperature increase be a bad thing? It is a statistical fact that more life is lost due to severe cold than severe heat. 3. Assuming everything pro-AGW believers is accurate, what is the global solution(s) to reverse the effects and how will you get the entire globe to put this plan into action? 4. What are the potential unintended consequences of the plan?
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 11:07 AM
Michael_Hillinger (QR) Wrote:1 min ago (10:55 AM): "When you change the label of this religion from "AGW" to "Global Climate Change", all bases are covered." No one "changed" the terms, both have been in existence for years and they mean different things. --------------------------------- I was referring to the recent lexicon used by the MSM. When "Global Warming" no longer fit the scientific evidence, the religionists starting pushing the use of "Climate Change" and the MSM dutifully followed suit. It is very similar to the label "Liberal" being exchanged for "Progressive". Once the term proved to be a net negative, a new label sprang into the modern lexicon. Yes, I know the strict definitions are not synonymous, but the average low-info citizen doesn't know that.
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 10:50 AM
And yet, based upon recent track records, in five or ten years when these predictions fail to materialize, the same "scientists" will come up with reasons (i.e., "excuses") for why the climate didn't cooperate. When you change the label of this religion from "AGW" to "Global Climate Change", all bases are covered. Saying the climate is changing is as "risky" as saying the sun rises in the east.
Taft Wrote:21 mins ago (10:09 AM): "As things go, he lies a bit less than other politicians. Far less than Cruz..." ---------------------------- The above is at least the second time you've accused Cruz of being a liar (and a bigger liar than Obama), yet you've posted not a single example of these so-called lies. Are you capable of providing evidence, or is "Cruz lies" just one of those things leftists accept as "fact"... like AGW?
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 10:13 AM
"According to NOAA- it was the hottest year on record since 1880 when records started being kept." ----------------------------- So... 2014 was the hottest year since records have been kept... all 134 years! That's 134 years in Earth's geologic history of 4,540,000,000 years! And according to this "hottest year on record" claim, we're talking about 0.02 degrees warmer, well within the margin of error and certainly well outside temperature sensors' capabilities for most of that 134 year period. Yet devout AGW disciples will scream "hottest year on record!" from the top of their lungs as though they've just been given the date of Jesus' return.
James_The Practical Libertarian Wrote:18 mins ago (9:16 AM): "Taft be so kind and provide an example of where Cruz lied. I'm patiently waiting." ------------------- James, please understand that to libs like Taft, Cruz "lying" is much like AGW. There is some "consensus" that warrants no dispute. It is "settled" science. To me, it is just further evidence that supports the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Bill Clinton introduced us to the concept of parsing. The Obama administration has raised it to an art form.
1 - 10 Next