Quetzal
New member
The data still stands and is part of the discussion and debate. If you cannot contest the data with another set, you have nothing to offer.
What are the main challenges facing Mankind today?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It's a very thin start.
Consider a construction engineer assessing the integrity of the WTC on 9/10 - he walks up to it, walks around it and pokes at the base all the way around - never looks up, never goes inside, never takes a look at the beams or the foundation.
And then writes his report and his recommendations.
The next day, with it all lying on the ground as a heap of smoking rubble, he says "Hey! Where'd all that steel come from?"
Consider a construction engineer assessing the integrity of the WTC on 9/10 - he walks up to it, walks around it and pokes at the base all the way around - never looks up, never goes inside, never takes a look at the beams or the foundation.
And then writes his report and his recommendations.
The next day, with it all lying on the ground as a heap of smoking rubble, he says "Hey! Where'd all that steel come from?"
Quetzal
New member
Despite how thin you believe it to be, it is still better than what you have presented. Which is nothing.
ps: The building would still be standing if it were not for the planes. Needless to say, I doubt the engineers tested their structures against the force from a direct collision with a 747. Your comparison, like your posts so far, hold nothing of value.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Looks like you missed my point.
The engineer was oblivious to the mass of data he should have been considering, until the structure was exposed.
Just as those, like you, who see the barest veneer of data and deem it adequate to base recommendations upon.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Quetzal
New member
http://climate.nasa.gov/
It is right there, black and white, on the home page. What are you trying to contest, exactly?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The validity of the data and the conclusions drawn from it.
Scientists are supposed to be skeptical of those kinds of things.
Are you a scientist?
Quetzal
New member
No, I'm not. That is why I am presenting data from the leading organization in regards to research on the topic, not my own. So, you are saying this is all a scam? Made up? NASA has fudged the numbers and all of that data? None of it is valid?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Quetzal
New member
You are being dense and taking up a position on the contrary with nothing to support yourself. This is the last time I am going to reply to you unless you can produce a post with any valid, conflicting data/theories. Otherwise, you are just another denier with nothing to offer but your personal, ill-informed opinion.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
No, I'm being skeptical, like a good scientist should.
Okie dokie, but for those following along, consider this - the little ice age, the medieval warming period and the year without summer - all instances of short term climate change, all causally unconnected to human activity.
Quetzal
New member
And this explains the difference (Not that I actually expect you or Dan to seriously consider this data, since it is invalid, of course. /s ):
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
PureX
Well-known member
The glaring difference between Rachel Madow and Bill O'Reilly is that she is meticulous about checking her facts, where as O'Rielly is not, and the purpose of her being on the air is to counter right wing political propaganda and promote a left wing agenda. Whereas O'Reilly is just a verbal gladiator employed to get attention.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It makes a lot of claims, yes.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Yeaaaah, about that.
I'm gonna need you to go ahead and google "rachel maddow caught in lie" and get back to us
That'll be great.
Quetzal
New member
I really... really want to not like you... but that reference make me laugh.
PureX
Well-known member
I did, and I don't see one credible source. All I see are right wing propaganda sites spouting off unsubstantiated accusations. Which I assume is why you didn't post any links.
So, in keeping with typical conservative 'style' these days, your comeback was clever, even a bit rude, but essentially dishonest. Which is why conservatives love Bill O'Reilly. He's the king of clever, rude, but essentially dishonest.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
took me about a second and a half:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-maddow-not-even-old-gen-eisenhower-saluted-/
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Here's six more from Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/statements/byruling/false/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/statements/byruling/false/