Important message to everyone. Please read before posting in this group and the forums.
If your membership or presence in this group is to be a good experience, you must follow the code of conduct
This is an impartial decision, not based on the content of your recent posts, but by the code of conduct which clearly states how you must present yourself accordingly in this group.
You have BREACHED the codes:(CC.1) (CC.3) (CC.4) (CC.5) (CC.6) and (CC.7)
Please see Moddb.com for the details of the stated references above.
We have discussed you recent APPALLING conduct in the council meeting
Hence you are no longer allowed to contribute to this group.
(Personal: To be honest I have been very lenient about this, you should have been kicked from the group the moment you posted that commentary. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt, yet you still continued with the hateful comments. Your SEXISM, RACISM and BIGOTRY has gone long enough. NO ONE is EXEMPT FROM MORALITY REGARDLESS OF THEIR SITUATION
I have noticed you have deleted the image. This changes nothing. You cannot erase the past. And you are now not welcome here.
I am particularly enraged by your conduct and this decision is FINAL. I do NOT care what more you have to say about it. Do not come back here again.) I authorize the moderators to have freedom of deleting any posts you make here.
Thank you for your contribution to this group and I bid you fare well and good fortune.
Cognosco, The Overseer.
I hate men - Youtube.com
I'm sorry, bye-bye. :(
And yes it did take me three attempts to post this correctly. (I spotted a very bad grammar fail which gives the wrong message lol)
Lol I found another one now but i am not reposting it >.<
Global warming is real. There is no way to honestly deny that. And the issue is not that Earth gets warmer - it's perfectly normal for it to do that.
The issue is that usually it did that over millenia if not decamillenia...Now it's heated up in 200 years more than in the past 5 million.
Also, using Christopher Monckton as a source on Climate Science is like using Kent Hovind as a source on Evolution.
Although I said I understand your refusal of Monckton I would like to question your views on someone who has been declared wrong by the powers that be and the general mass populace. Does someone who is wrong by popular opinion, mean that they are actually wrong? The Church of Galileo's time was one of his greatest hindrances, even threatening him with death for his studies. In my opinion the Chruch's view of him certainly does not warrant Galileo being branded a fraud, even if they spoke for the rest of the world during that era.
Of course saying that today in retrospect is almost silly. Galileo was certainly not fraud!
This brings me back to the main subject, should we refuse to hear anything more from Monckton because what could be considered as the church of today states that he is wrong?
Monckton presented a very convincing argument and the raw data in all its magnificence to back it up at his lecture.
I think he has a point.
I'd be more than just a little bit skeptical before believing Monckton. He's not just declared wrong by the "powers of the mass populace", he's quite absurd on a number of levels which have nothing to do with the public eye; this IS the fellow who said we should take the UK's government out of the hands of secularists and permanently quarantine AIDS carriers. I know how weak it seems to use an ad hominem argument and point out other aspects of his opinions and judge by that, but let's consider this: This man can say completely absurd, illogical things and be taken entirely seriously by some people, despite them making no sense or being quite horrible. Should we really trust him as a legitimate source on climate change?
Point definitely heard. Say we throw out Monckton. I still believe that the scientific data, collected in its purest form, points against what we are currently fed through the media and such. I really could go on, but I am no scientist and the science in this topic is quite out there. All I know is that there a graphs and data sets that just don't match up. And why would these warmists delete important reference points like the Medieval Warming Period? Why would Al Gore be purchasing a million dollar condo, right on the coast in San Francisco where he says the water will be in however many year?
Things don't add up. I like things that don't add up.
The conclusions which have been come to by the vast majority of scientists largely support global warming. These are people who compile the data, know about the methods which can corrupt/influence data, and draw together conclusions based on their knowledge and data. While I'm not trying to say "TEH SCIENTIZZTS SAY IT TRU SO IT TRU", we need to recognize that we aren't scientists and are not exactly qualified to draw serious conclusions from raw data. Not saying that we shouldn't look into it ourselves, but it is an issue which is agreed upon pretty widely by people who actually study the field.
I'm not saying that we should blindly trust scientists, but both from my own research on the subject matter, the near-consensus among the scientific community, and the identities of many of the people opposing global warming (In America, usually the same people who have historically defend creationism, racism, sexism and generally other rather nasty "isms" out there- though of course not all skeptics are like that. Once again, sorry for ad hominem, but I think this should be taken into consideration- these are not usually the people who defend things on rational grounds), I believe that there is a lot more evidence leaning towards the idea that global warming is indeed happening.
You want the data? Moddb.com
You are welcome.
You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.
2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only