This Ought to End the Global Warming Denialism on the Board

1966stang said:
Your saying that because it is alive and has human DNA, that it is a viable life. My fingernail clipping is alive, and has human DNA cells. should I not clip my finger nails?
Click to expand...

lmao... you seemed to be smarter than that. that is in no way what I stated. I said nothing about what makes a life 'viable'. I did state that VIABILITY has nothing to do with genetics and whether or not something is human.
 
1966stang said:
Great, I will play. Based on what actual science do you make this claim?
Click to expand...

1) CO2 levels have continued increasing the past 17 years
2) The AGW fear mongers stated it was CO2 from man driving warming
3) There has been no significant warming in the past 17 years.

So your theory is incorrect. Man is not the driving force in climate change.
 
Superfreak said:
1) CO2 levels have continued increasing the past 17 years
2) The AGW fear mongers stated it was CO2 from man driving warming
3) There has been no significant warming in the past 17 years.

So your theory is incorrect. Man is not the driving force in climate change.
Click to expand...
Oops
 
Yeah, I guess this one is in order again:

Escalator_2012_500.gif
 
Superfreak said:
Actually it is the fear mongers that are flat earthers... just look how they never use DATA to support their position. They just shout CONSENSUS!!!

Do go on being another Desh though... the board so very much needs another deranged lunatic like her. You are well on your way.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you don't engage in name-calling, I respect that!
 
1966stang said:
No, but when scientists have consensus they normally have used falsifiable data to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Argument from authority is the first line of defence for people like you. You need to understand the asymmetry between proposing a theory and refuting one. To propose a theory about climate you need to cobble together a vast number of different disciplines and produce a consistent result. To destroy such a theory you can be as ignorant as you like about most of the theory but simply be able to produce a single flaw, this is the principle of falsifiability. You could say to me that all swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by simply observing a single black swan.

Aristotle claimed objects fall with a speed proportional to their weight. This was accepted for nearly two thousand years until Galileo disproved it with a simple experiment. Anyone could do the experiment, so why did the world believe Aristotle for so long? I assume it’s the “taboo” of arguing with the authority. Even Galileo got himself into trouble with the authority of the Catholic Church, and it took them 500 years to admit Galileo was right.
 
Rune said:
Temps haven't stabilized you flipping moron. That is just your bald faced lie of a misinterpretation. The chart clearly show a slow steady, inexorable increase.
Click to expand...
17 years... no statistically significant increase... the chart shows the trend line in blue... note how it flattens the past decade plus
 
Superfreak said:
you really are an idiot... life does begin at conception you moron. It doesn't magically wait 12 hours. You cannot even comprehend what she stated. the new human genome is COMPLETED WITHIN 12 hours. That means it takes roughly 12 hours for the formation to occur. It BEGINS when the sperm and egg cell merge.

But, as I stated, you are too ignorant of basic biology to comprehend that. You think you have some sort of 'gotcha'.

idiot.
Click to expand...


I understood what she said just fine.

You claim that human life begins when the human genome forms or when that process begins, you can't seem to decide which. But your contradicting claims on WHEN LIFE BEGINS, not the information on the formation of the genome, has nothing to do with biology. It's your religious/philosophical view or moral claim. The biologists disagreed with you on whether the presence of a unique human genome constitutes the beginning of human life. You are a retard that does not understand the data the biologist provided, just like you don't understand the NOAA chart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top