NATION

PASSWORD

Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Post a reply
User avatar
Saruhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8013
Founded: Feb 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Saruhan » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:35 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:


unitl 1978 if you said moons can have volcano's you would have been laughed out of any science symposium, and would not have been able to earn a Ph.d in astrophysics, Because everyone knew moons were cold dead worlds,.... then came voyager, and oh look at Io..... Science was completely and utterly wrong.

And? We actually have proof that we can present. People were laugh at that because they were putting forward proposals that had no scientific backing. Just like today
Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.
Top
User avatar
Anacasppia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1656
Founded: Mar 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Anacasppia » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:36 pm

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Eleutheria wrote:
Indeed, I'm a libertarian and fairly close to liking Ayn Rand (it was the hair that put me off her in the end, not her abhorrent betrayal of her principles in her latter life btw :P )

I feel compelled to point out on behalf of my bastardised objectivist ideological cousins that they do, as a whole, have very intelligent proponents who (unlike Objectiveland) use very intelligent arguments instead of just copying and pasting dogma from http://aynrandlexicon.com/ .

As for Climate Change deniers being disenfranchised, I am sure that if you truly have the better argument it would be far better to just debate with them. Al Gore did it, and he got the popular vote. It isn't unthinkable that another man (or woman) at another time could reach the same conclusion and win the presidency.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." Undermining our democracy for the sake of the climate is an understandable wish, but what will the state decide constitutes a national emergency next? What other liberties will it remove? What other groups will it disenfranchise?

We call certain rights immutable for a reason.


We restrict rights all the time in those cases where their exercise harms or limits the freedoms of others--limiting freedom of speech in the case of death threats, or freedom of assembly in the case of murder contracts.

And that's assuming that "voting" is a right, that "electoral democracy" is real democracy, etc.--all of which I positively reject anyway.


Ah, reminds me of this Nationstates issue which basically requires you to choose either political freedoms or civil rights over the other. Something about a fascist party being elected into power, if my memory serves me well. Anyway, going by the 'slippery slope' argument, there is the risk that once we start disenfranchising one particular group within the electorate, it'll open the door to the disenfranchisement of other groups which those in power may deem to be 'negative' (fascists, communists, etc), leading to the loss of democracy.
Foederatae Anacaspiae
Federated States of Anacaspia
Factbook | Introduction | Federated States Military Forces


Call me Ana.
I support thermonuclear warfare. Don't you?
Anemos Major wrote:Forty-five men, thirty four tons, one crew cabin... anything could happen.

Mmm... it's getting hot in here.
Top
User avatar
Raeyh
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6275
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Raeyh » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:36 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
The voters don't get laws passed, the politicians do.


Correct, but if stupid people vote for stupid politicians, guess whose policies get pushed?


It's not like you have a huge range of politicians to choose from. It's just one guy or his competitor.
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:36 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:


unitl 1978 if you said moons can have volcano's you would have been laughed out of any science symposium, and would not have been able to earn a Ph.d in astrophysics, Because everyone knew moons were cold dead worlds,.... then came voyager, and oh look at Io..... Science was completely and utterly wrong.


Science changes, hence why even the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. While supported by many facts, science is reluctant to ever call something a law unless there's no way it could be false, because even a minor shred of doubt could turn into outright falsehood with future evidence.

However, just because we can't definitively prove global warming, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There's evidence to suggest it's existence and we're going based on this evidence. If further evidence comes up that disproves climate change, we'll change our opinions.
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:41 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
You can't possibly know that man made climate change is true


So it's immediately false?

You can't possibly know the Bible is true. I got bad news for all Christians by your logic...


Agreed. I'm glad to see someone uses logic on this site.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126530
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Libertarian Police State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:41 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
unitl 1978 if you said moons can have volcano's you would have been laughed out of any science symposium, and would not have been able to earn a Ph.d in astrophysics, Because everyone knew moons were cold dead worlds,.... then came voyager, and oh look at Io..... Science was completely and utterly wrong.


Science changes, hence why even the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. While supported by many facts, science is reluctant to ever call something a law unless there's no way it could be false, because even a minor shred of doubt could turn into outright falsehood with future evidence.

However, just because we can't definitively prove global warming, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There's evidence to suggest it's existence and we're going based on this evidence. If further evidence comes up that disproves climate change, we'll change our opinions.


I agree there is evidence to suggest it exists, that does not give anyone the right to disenfranchise someone because they disbelieve the evidence. The further point i want to make is folks who wish to disenfranchise voters deserve the same fate they propose, if not worse, themselves. Because they are greater threat to democracy than the others.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 



http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:42 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
So it's immediately false?

You can't possibly know the Bible is true. I got bad news for all Christians by your logic...


Agreed. I'm glad to see someone uses logic on this site.

I notice you didn't say facts or evidence. It's a good thing, too. Because you've used none.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:51 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Agreed. I'm glad to see someone uses logic on this site.

I notice you didn't say facts or evidence. It's a good thing, too. Because you've used none.


Nor have you. My facts or evidence ( or anyone who disagrees with you) are biased according to you. Your facts have been provided by moochers paid by government looters. Therefore I can state what is true objectively (which is climate has always changed and always will irregardless of humans) and you can state the lies you choose to believe.
Last edited by Objectiveland on Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:52 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:I notice you didn't say facts or evidence. It's a good thing, too. Because you've used none.


Nor have you. My facts or evidence ( or anyone who disagrees with you) are biased according to you. Your facts have been provided by moochers paid by government looters. Therefore I can state what is true objectively (which is climate has always changed and always will irregardless of humans) and you can state the lies you choose to believe.


So... troll?

All science is dictated by moochers and government looters?

Definitely troll. Troll. Troll. Troll. Troll.
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:54 pm

Objectiveland wrote:Nor have you.

You keep saying that, and yet I posted this several times. :roll:
Mavorpen wrote:
Augarundus wrote:http://www.theindiapost.com/enviornment/global-warming-man-made-dr-arya/

Just looking at this graph I can't take the guy seriously...

Complete bullshit. Moreover, scientists have given an explanation for this phenomena. The masking of global warming is temporary.

This one's just pathetic.

Basically this guy's saying it's a cycle. Try again.

Wrong.

LOL! I actually laughed out loud at this one. It was debunked heavily in another thread. I won't go digging through threads to find it, but here you go.

Yahoo...? Should I even entertain this one? After reading through the YouTube comments, I find this gem in the comments:"You're all aware that Forbes editor-in-chief is a former republican presidential hopeful. He's also on the board of directors for FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing lobbying NGO run by the Koch brothers, libertarian billionaires that that secretly fund the tea party movement.... so excuse me when I say that this article is a little biased."

But anyway, the guy who co-authored it? Roy Spencer? Maybe you should have did research on him. If that's not enough, his studies were flawed.

The first link contains a topic I already addressed (lol at Forbes). The second link is also lol worthy. A mathematician that doesn't understand climate. Go figure.
Augarundus wrote:It's intellectually irresponsible to jump to conclusions about anthropogenic climate change. Data isn't conclusive - causal relationships between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and warming can't be adequately established, climate modelling has empirically failed, etc. etc.

No, what's intellectually irresponsible as well as lazy is that you seemed to refuse to research both sides. It seems that you wanted to be the "hipster" of this thread, so you quickly searched, "GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!" into Google, and copy and pasted the "best" links you could find. The data is conclusive.
Augarundus wrote:I'm no scientist, and this is an observational (as opposed to a priori) field, so I won't pretend to know the answer. But it's not so firmly established as fact that the common, uneducated man should push policy decisions to address it.

Uh huh, sure. I really expected more from you.


Objectiveland wrote:My facts or evidence ( or anyone who disagrees with you) are biased according to you.

Impossible, you've provided none.
Objectiveland wrote:Your facts have been provided by moochers paid by government looters.

Still facts. You've provided a total of absolutely ZERO.
Objectiveland wrote:Therefore I can state what is true objectively (which is climate has always changed and always will irregardless of humans) and you can state the lies you choose to believe.

You've provided no evidence, so you can't state anything.

Also, care to provide evidence the sources were provided by people who took government money? I'll be waiting.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:58 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Nor have you. My facts or evidence ( or anyone who disagrees with you) are biased according to you. Your facts have been provided by moochers paid by government looters. Therefore I can state what is true objectively (which is climate has always changed and always will irregardless of humans) and you can state the lies you choose to believe.


So... troll?

All science is dictated by moochers and government looters?

Definitely troll. Troll. Troll. Troll. Troll.


Whatever. Read my previous. Scientists are provided with a lab and a position of "prestige" to supply the hand that feeds them with the " facts" you spew.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
You-Gi-Owe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6230
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby You-Gi-Owe » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:58 pm

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Electoral democracy is not a suicide pact, and it's certainly not an end in itself. Rather, it's a means to ensuring the well-being of humanity, and there should be no hesitation to set it aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end, just as we would set aside a hammer with no compunctions when it comes time to cut a plank in two.

If the climate change deniers continue with their willfull ignorance and obstructionism, well, we are not obligated to let them sacrifice all of humanity for their own short-term private interests. Our lives are more important than their oil revenues. If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

^ Totally effed and inconsiderate. Your world view is so very narrow minded. You've failed to convince the world and in your rage, you don't appreciate the notion that any number of your disagreements on the world and govt. would be perfectly acceptable to the majority of the population that YOU be disenfranchised and denied internet access for the good of mankind.
“Man, I'm so hip I won't even eat a square meal!”
"We've always been at war with Eastasia." 1984, George Orwell
Tyrion: "Those are brave men knocking at our door. Let's go kill them!"
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” ~ James Madison quotes
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:58 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
So... troll?

All science is dictated by moochers and government looters?

Definitely troll. Troll. Troll. Troll. Troll.


Whatever. Read my previous. Scientists are provided with a lab and a position of "prestige" to supply the hand that feeds them with the " facts" you spew.


Still waiting on your evidence for this that my sources fits this description. Refute EVERY one of them.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:59 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
So... troll?

All science is dictated by moochers and government looters?

Definitely troll. Troll. Troll. Troll. Troll.


Whatever. Read my previous. Scientists are provided with a lab and a position of "prestige" to supply the hand that feeds them with the " facts" you spew.


Your post still doesn't include facts so...
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:01 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Whatever. Read my previous. Scientists are provided with a lab and a position of "prestige" to supply the hand that feeds them with the " facts" you spew.


Your post still doesn't include facts so...

He doesn't even know what a control group is. I wouldn't expect him to understand how science works.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:02 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Whatever. Read my previous. Scientists are provided with a lab and a position of "prestige" to supply the hand that feeds them with the " facts" you spew.


Still waiting on your evidence for this that my sources fits this description. Refute EVERY one of them.


Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:03 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
Still waiting on your evidence for this that my sources fits this description. Refute EVERY one of them.


Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.


Except your viewpoint is not objective. It's biased.

You don't seem to understand what objective means. You can't pull shit out your ass and call it "objective".
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:03 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
Still waiting on your evidence for this that my sources fits this description. Refute EVERY one of them.


Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.


Except you've given NO scientific sources at all. So again, GIVE SOURCES. At LEAST one scientific source. Go ahead. If you're as objective as you claim, and if you're right, it should be no problem.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Raeyh
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6275
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Raeyh » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:05 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.


Except you've given NO scientific sources at all. So again, GIVE SOURCES. At LEAST one scientific source. Go ahead. If you're as objective as you claim, and if you're right, it should be no problem.


You can't honestly expect a scientific report saying that scientists are really frauds. That's a completely unreasonable request from anyone.
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:05 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.


Except your viewpoint is not objective. It's biased.

You don't seem to understand what objective means. You can't pull shit out your ass and call it "objective".


The only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will. Irregardless of humans as there were no humans 5 million years ago
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:06 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Except your viewpoint is not objective. It's biased.

You don't seem to understand what objective means. You can't pull shit out your ass and call it "objective".


The only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will. Irregardless of humans as there were no humans 5 million years ago


Cite a scientific source showing that humans have had NO impact on climate change. None.

Show me a graph that demonstrates that climate change 5 million years ago was the same as that today, thus showing humans had no impact on it.

If you can't, your viewpoint is not objective. It's, again, shit pulled from your ass.
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:06 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Except your viewpoint is not objective. It's biased.

You don't seem to understand what objective means. You can't pull shit out your ass and call it "objective".


The only objective truth is the climate has always changed and always will. Irregardless of humans as there were no humans 5 million years ago

SOURCE.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Objectiveland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Objectiveland » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:07 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Objectiveland wrote:
Just as mine to you your sources to me are meaningless. Just concede that people are allowed to have an objective viewpoint other than yours.


Except you've given NO scientific sources at all. So again, GIVE SOURCES. At LEAST one scientific source. Go ahead. If you're as objective as you claim, and if you're right, it should be no problem.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:07 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
Except you've given NO scientific sources at all. So again, GIVE SOURCES. At LEAST one scientific source. Go ahead. If you're as objective as you claim, and if you're right, it should be no problem.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change

NOT a scientific source.

Try again.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:08 pm

Objectiveland wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
Except you've given NO scientific sources at all. So again, GIVE SOURCES. At LEAST one scientific source. Go ahead. If you're as objective as you claim, and if you're right, it should be no problem.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change


Conservapedia...

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Oh... That slaps me on the knee!

Try a real source, please.
Glorious puppet of Highfort
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Betoni, Cachard Calia, Honorlords, Narland, Senkaku, Vassenor

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Advertisement

Remove ads