Englebert

In that same vein, every time we have an "unusual" weather event the Man-Made Global Warming thieves point to a warmer earth. But when asked to prove their theory that man is to blame, they run and hide while screaming 97% of the scientists agree. I don't think that I've ever heard of a theory that has 97% agreement among specialists in their field being so hard to prove. A simple Bing search should provide this causal link for everybody to see. Why won't the "scientists" prove man is the cause? Is it because they can't?

There is also evidence of Ice Sheets getting significantly larger in other parts of the world. And this gives no credible evidence of Man being the cause and that Earth is in crisis mode.

I vehemently do not agree that earth's warming is settled science. The data is flawed, and admittedly skewed and manipulated. That is undeniable. But this is the exact thing that Climate Change "scientists" want...for people to get bogged down in this part of the debate...preventing points two and three from even being discussed. When those two points can be discussed, it is painfully clear that these "scientists" have zero clue as to what effect man really has on earth's climate, and more importantly, if man's "solutions" are negligible, helpful or hurtful to the health of earth. This so-called agreement basically stems down to more CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. For argument's sake, let's just concede that and agree that is the cause of a conceded rise in earth's temperature. That's a lot of conceding on my part, but I want to get through the minutia of point 1 and focus on points 2 and 3. The scientists say that increased levels of CO2 has to be attributable to man. I have read a lot of these studies, and none (well a few that draw their unwanted conclusions) have even considered the idea that maybe the higher levels of CO2 are naturally occurring. None look at volcanoes as a viable attributable source, which should immediately lead one to be highly skeptical of any conclusions drawn. None look to the sun as a attributable candidate, which again, even though it is known but not understood about solar flares, solar hot spots, solar cold spots, solar hibernation, etc., this lack of inclusion of the sun should probably make one high skeptical of the competence and legitimacy of their conclusions. None look to earth's variable tilting and ever changing orbit around the sun. None look to the effects of the moon's variable tug on earth. This should raise red flags and have warning bells creating a deafening sound. There are plenty more factors that need to be studied...but no, the debate is over. Consensus says man is the cause and don't dare question us. Now, why would scientists and politicians push this narrative. Power and money. Simple as that. Now let's move to point 3, which is probably moot but maybe should be discussed. Is the so-called warming of earth catastrophic or even detrimental? History has shown that earth has thrived during its warmest times. So who is to say that man is not saving the planet, and that any attempt to manipulate this warming trend is actually destructive to earth's health. Better yet, how much impact will any "solution" have? I have recently heard some treasonous politicians talking about their support of the Kyoto Protocol, and gave details about some of the benefits it will have on earth's future. As outlined above, they have absolutely no clue as to what any "preventative" measures will do. And as usual, Americans will be footing the bill. And there you have it. Our politicians want China and other countries to "clean up" their act. They know the countries will demand that the U.S. pay for these measures. They also know that the American people will not willingly just hand over billions and trillions of dollars. Hence, the crisis! I'm all for cleaning up our earth and limiting the amount of pollutants in our waters and atmosphere. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy in a pursuit of unproven solutions to an unknown and (non)understood problem.

When did I try this, and what happened? Are you reading those secret history books again?

I'm still holding out hope.

I recently read (on a different forum) that someone has a scientific based opinion on Man-Made Global Warming. I'm not going to name names, but I believe the name had something to do with the greatest state in the Union and possibly something to do with basketball...or maybe hula girls, I don't know. (smileyface) Considering I have much respect for this anonymous poster, this revelation propelled me to open the topic for the umpteenth time for debate, and I encourage input from anyone and everyone. I put this topic in the Political forum since this "debate" is just a political one anyway. So here is the theory of Man-Made Global Warming (recently known as Climate Change): 1. The Earth is warming 2. This warming is caused by Man 3. This warming is catastrophic For debate's sake, let's just skip assumption 1. There is a plethora of "evidence" for and against this one. Global Warming Liars Affirmatives will try to bog the debate down on this issue. Let's just concentrate on assumption 2 and 3. Please show where the supposedly (and possible) rise in Earth's global temperature is attributable solely, or even mainly, or even remotely to Man. And, possibly even more important, show where this warming is catastrophic or even detrimental. I will happily submit my views, rebuttals, objections, retorts, etc. to any credible reply. I will even provide my irrefutable rationale (again) for the political posturing on this topic.

Not very smart...as opposed to who?

Really? You would love to debate him? You can't even debate anyone on this site. You continually refuse to answer questions posed to you, then make the same absurd statements that were rebuked in which you couldn't or wouldn't defend. Case in point...my previous post to you. You won't answer, you can't answer, but somehow have the arrogance to say you can debate a presidential nominee.

She gets her news from Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Politfact and who knows what uber-left wing news sources, so she's still in the dark on this revelation.

I agree 100%. SECEDE NOW!!!

Your use of a "point spread" emphatically shows your failure to comprehend my post. If you were the defendant in a court of law and the judge asked you to give up your right to appeal before the proceedings even occurred, would you acquiescent to that? Better yet, let's use your expertise as an example. If you were about to undergo surgery, would you consent to not suing the RN, Doctor, or Hospital if the surgery went wrong...due to negligence that was discovered after the surgery? That is, would you give up your right to sue beforehand no matter what the outcome of your surgery?

I didn't really watch the debate. I had it on my TV, but was working on my computer and it was just background noise. But I shifted my attention when Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the election results. I'm flabbergasted as to what this question was supposed to be about. For example, if I was a head football coach and the head official came to me before the game and asked "Are you going to accept the results of this game?" I guess my response would be "Are you asking me to give up my right to protest the game before the game is ever played?" Or if I was in a court of law and before the proceedings started the judge asked "Are you going to accept the results of the decision of this court?" Again, my response would be "Are you trying to make me forfeit my right to appeal?" I don't know why that question was asked and why so many people are showing interest in it.

1. The Woodlands/Conroe 2. Barbers Hill/New Caney 3. Crosby/Splendora 4. Kingwood Park/Dayton 5. Beaumont Central/Port Neches-Groves 6. Beaumont Ozen/Lumberton 7. Port Arthur Memorial/Livingston 8. Vidor/Baytown Lee 9. Little Cypress-Mauriceville/Huffman Hargrave 10. Silsbee/Bridge City 11. Tatum/Jasper 12. Madisonville/Brookshire Royal 13. Hamshire-Fannett/Orangefield 14. Hardin-Jefferson/Liberty 15. Warren/Trinity 16. Woodville/Kountze 17. Anahuac/Hempstead 18. East Chambers/La Marque 19. Corrigan-Camden/Newton 20. Alto/San Augustine 21. Joaquin/Price Carlisle 22. Centerville/Lovelady 23. Deweyville/West Hardin 24. Sabine Pass/Hull-Daisetta 25. Beaumont Legacy Christian/Houston Northland Christian

Kenneth Hall from Sugarland. Never panned out at Texas A&M. He held the national all-time rushing yards for about 60 years.

1. Port Neches-Groves/Port Arthur Memorial 2. Buna/Woodville 3. Union Hill/High Island 4. West Brook/Lufkin 5. Atascocita/Summer Creek 6. Dayton/Crosby 7. Humble/Barbers Hill 8. Livingston/Vidor 9 Lumberton/Central 10. Bridge City/Little Cypress-Mauriceville 11. Huffman/Cleveland 12. Diboll/Huntington 13. Brookshire Royal/Tarkington 14. West Orange-Stark/Hardin-Jefferson 15. Kirbyville/Warren 16. Hardin/East Chambers 17. Hempstead/Hitchcock 18. Crockett/Corrigan-Camden 19. Newton/Garrison 20. Price Carlisle/Alto 21. West Sabine/Centerville 22. Iola/Sabine Pass 23. Orange Community Christian/Alvin Living Stones 24. Nederland/Ozen 25. Shepherd/Madisonville

Can I come with you? I have a ladder to get over the wall.

Don't forget "Deplorable".

I was getting a buffer to skip through the commercials. Was reading this forum until I got at least 20 minute buffer. I can't go to the college boards until I catch up to live TV. OU sucks even on this forum.

I just went back and reviewed what you wrote. I thought you said I had diabetes when you actually said "How are you not diabetic". My bad, I missed the "NOT" part of it. I apologize. Now back to the topic. Wait. What is the topic?

Maybe you should look up the word diabetes. Comprehension seems to have turned against you. But please keep trying. I have all day.

So calling me diabetic when you know nothing of my health issues is not considered a personal attack? Frankly I don't mind. In fact, I even expect it. Sure sign of someone that can't defend his point. And I curious as to your motivation and attitude. Did you just try to argue that you are here to help me? If that is your contention, no thanks.

So no examples, no rebuttals, just personal attacks. You must be absorbing way too much Liberalism theology.

The Green Bay clown could beat Hillary right now. But after the Left wing biased media gets through with him, he wouldn't be able to beat Charlie Manson.

FIFY

According to the article you posted, Fox News lies or spouts half truths 78% of the time. Why not just turn on the channel and find one of these examples. If Politifact is truthful, this exercise should take no more than two minutes.