Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Sorry guy. Where information comes from is completely irrelavent. Suggesting that information is not correct based on nothing more than the source constitutes one of the more pitiful logical fallacies known as a circumstantial ad homenim. It is one of those fallacies that highlights the fact that you don't have any defense for your postion at all.The information on the scientists and their words are not from the senator and it is pretty clear that you aren't going to learn about either the scientists or their change of mind in the main stream media. That fact alone brings the material one gets from the mainstream media into question. It is clear that they are not simply reporting what is happening, but are engaging in a very real attempt to create the illusion that all scientists are in lock step on this issue and that the skeptics are only far out wackos. The names I brought here as an example is evidence that such is simply not the case.And with regard to "the senator from exxon" comment. Over the past decade, exxon has put up about 10 million dollars compared to over 50 BILLION, that is BILLION with a capital B that has come rolling in from special interest groups that support the AGW theory. ONCE AGAIN FOR THE LEARNING IMPAIRED, if money is the means by which you determine who is telling the truth and who is lying, then the story being told by the AGW supporters is about 2600 times more suspect than that of the skeptics as they have recieved about 2600 times more money from special interest groups.Get yourself a real argument and address the issues rather than whining like a baby over where the information comes from.
Sorry guy. Where information comes from is completely irrelavent. Suggesting that information is not correct based on nothing more than the source constitutes one of the more pitiful logical fallacies known as a circumstantial ad homenim. It is one of those fallacies that highlights the fact that you don't have any defense for your postion at all.
The information on the scientists and their words are not from the senator and it is pretty clear that you aren't going to learn about either the scientists or their change of mind in the main stream media. That fact alone brings the material one gets from the mainstream media into question. It is clear that they are not simply reporting what is happening, but are engaging in a very real attempt to create the illusion that all scientists are in lock step on this issue and that the skeptics are only far out wackos. The names I brought here as an example is evidence that such is simply not the case.
And with regard to "the senator from exxon" comment. Over the past decade, exxon has put up about 10 million dollars compared to over 50 BILLION, that is BILLION with a capital B that has come rolling in from special interest groups that support the AGW theory.
ONCE AGAIN FOR THE LEARNING IMPAIRED, if money is the means by which you determine who is telling the truth and who is lying, then the story being told by the AGW supporters is about 2600 times more suspect than that of the skeptics as they have recieved about 2600 times more money from special interest groups.
Get yourself a real argument and address the issues rather than whining like a baby over where the information comes from.
