Krellin, for the last time, I am not interested in debating this with you. You posed a question and I have answered it - openly, honestly and sincerely.

This is the last post I will make in this thread.

Same to you, Sbyvl, pretty much through this whole thread and many others where you just wait for krellin to post and then say "yes, you're right" and walk away. You're so ridiculously uninformed that you can't even produce a reason to support someone else's point, you just do, just, well, because.

"Climate change is quite well known, semck. The cause is what's debatable. If you still doubt climate change, you're 10 years behind."

I don't altogether disagree, bo. But you're making an elementary mistake as to the use of the word "debateable." The word "debateable" as you're using it does not mean, "able to be debated." It means "open to question." The mere fact that something is not debatable does not mean it cannot be debated. It merely means that one side should win the debate quickly easily. If that side refuses, it completely undermines their claim that their position is no longer debateable, since it appears they are not willing to put forward their supposedly very strong arguments and end the debate.

@Jamiet: Your "logic" is nothing more than following the "consensus" of people who are always wrong.

And remember, 30 years ago these same idiots were crying "ice age".

I'm just here to question the consensus. It was once the consensus that...

Blacks were 3/5 of a man and sub-human...just say in'...

"Blacks were 3/5 of a man and sub-human...just say in'... "

That's not really true. The people who wrote the 3/5 compromise doubtless had a whole range of opinions on whether blacks were 1/1 of a man or not a man at all, but none of those impacted the content of the compromise at all. It was purely a political deal struck to achieve balance, and had no reference whatever to what percentage of a human a black person was.

Actually, by the way, the north got completely screwed on that deal. They should definitely have held out for 0/5. This would have been far better for blacks, and would very probably have prevented the civil war. See Amar's "America's Constitution: A Biography" for more discussion.

By the way, the "That's not really true" thing was to the 3/5 comment, not the subhuman part. Undoubtedly, many people believed that.

No, semck, climate change is not questionable. That's a better word for you. I don't question it, science doesn't question it to any substantial degree, and those that do are being squashed over time and either realizing what they are fighting and joining it or turning to blatant misinformation and media blackouts, which are prevalent throughout science around the world, to keep the newest and most alarming often times information from exposure.

It is not debatable as in questionable, and its presence and potential (not definite) effect on all of us is also not debatable as in questionable. It is very clear what climate change could do if it is as bas as or worse than many predict, and even if it turns out to be a natural process that we've simply never experienced before, I don't understand how we take these risks by looking the other way.

Climate change....yes nobody disputes that the climate changes....see Ice Age...which ended without the benefit of man's input...

MANY people dispute the current popljlar vernacular of "climate change", which is Liberal-speak for what they once called "man made global warming" until they realized there were not enough of those pesky *facts* to support their politically motivated cause....

For what, krellin? What does a conspiracy accomplish? Don't say it gets them votes, that's bullshit. If it were a conspiracy, it would be *beyond* obvious by now, just as it would be if, say, 9/11 were a conspiracy. Which it's obviously not. Neither is.

bo-sox...it **IS** beyond obvious....but again, I know those pesky little data points about Stagnant Temperature and CO2 lagging temperature data don't matter much to "True Believers"....lol

Why? MONEY, bo...what will all the little disproven climate scientists do once it is proven that they have been cherry-picking data and lying? So they continue to cherry pick data and put forth false claims to the true believers to keep the funding rolling.

And when they are focred to admit their previous claims were wrong, they come up with new theories and keep chugging away.

Global Warming....has become Climate Change for a reason, bo...it's because they couldn't keep up the lie...

You are actually making my point for me, bo...

"No, semck, climate change is not questionable."

I didn't say it was. But questionable is a synonym of debateable. The point is, neither one gives warrant to refuse debating something. If you really believe that your position is overwhelmingly clear to the extent of opposing views being ridiculous, then you should relish debate, because you'll easily win, and look good in the process.

Refusing debate makes you look like you're just pretending that it's not questionable.

Did someone say 9/11?!?

No, semck, it means that I've debated it many times with krellin and I know how much he listens to me versus how much he speaks out his ass.

"No, semck, it means that I've debated it many times with krellin and I know how much he listens to me versus how much he speaks out his ass."

Then that's what you should say. Don't use it not being debatable as an excuse not to debate it.

You guys are wasting time. Just ask krellin where he has learned his "facts."

The answer should have you rolling in the isles within a few moments...

I gave my reasoning, semck: "If you're a doubter, I can't change you."

Read it.

I'd love to be rolling in the isles, YJ! Would this be in the Carribean? ;-)

Hey YellowJacket...remember when you posting about your desire to rape young girls? Yeah...I thought so....

Hey YellowJacket...are you too much of a fucking retard to read the posted articles in which the facts are presented?

Yeah...I thought so...

Once again YJ is afraid to have an honest debate. What a child...

Hey guys I got a riddle for you:

"How many radio interviews does it take to overthrow a scientific consensus?"

krellin knows the answer... shh don't spoil it for them krellin.

lol Semck Iseewutyoudidthere.

If Rush Limbaugh conducted the interview, one.

*snicker*

The funny thing, YJ still thinks blacks are subhuman....you know, can't let go of consensus and all that, right YJ old boy? Just like you view women as objects. Pooooor wittle YJ...he doesn't realize that consensus is meaningless...facts are the only thing that matters in **science**...moron.

Really you guys, this has all been hashed out before. I asked krellin what peer reviewed documents he had to back up his claims regarding climate change... and he links the following:

http://wjr.com/Article.asp?id=458274&spid=6552 (link broken?)

http://www.wjr.com/ (homepage)

Need I say more? There is no need to take every thing every idiot says like it deserves a discussion. Most things most idiots say do not. Treat them with the respect they deserve.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=802645&page-thread=1#threadPager

The link where he did it was pretty funny too. Just to give some perspective on the type of critical thinking you can come to expect.

Why is YJ posting for a radio station?

Feel free to ignore the ignoramous and just use the links as posted above....YJ is afraid to actually examine the presented facts. Intellectual coward, as always.