{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/8/2016 5:54:05 PM
20
And yet liberals believe in the gender pay gap obamacare wouldn't cost more money, and gunshow loopholes.
English
-
I believe in grammar.
-
Oh no:~ I messed up my grammar , Must be wrong then-.$;
-
You're totally right. I was a dick and I apologize. Can you fix your post though or resay what you said because I don't understand your point.
-
Edited by BlackMormon: 5/24/2016 7:29:45 PMObamacare was passed with a lie that it was going to be cheaper and lower costs. Any conservative would have told you otherwise. Gender pay gap doesn't take into account career choice, overtime, maternity leave, so on. People buying guns at shows or online get the same background check as everyone else. Te only people selling stuff without a check at gunshows aren't selling guns. Of course people selling a gun to their friend is never going to be regulated since those guns tend to not be registered. Non of my guns are registered anywhere.
-
I'm a liberal, and I know that the wage gap is bullshit. Since we're making generalizations here, conservatives don't believe in global warming.
-
We don't buy into the scare factor. First it was nuclear winter, then over population, then pollution, then warming, now climate change. Its always the "act now before it's too late" gimmick. Of course the answer is always some government programs and regulations that will solve it.
-
The degradation of our eco system is the scariest thing for humanity. If you're not scared you're ignorant.
-
If you're scared you're ignorant.
-
Edited by Kody: 5/24/2016 7:11:55 PMMassive amounts of research is what my fear is based on. And if you request citations I'll gladly post them for you. I'd like to know what your viewpoint is based on.
-
Refer to my other reply in this thread.
-
[quote]I'm a liberal, and I know that the wage gap is bullshit. Since we're making generalizations here, conservatives don't believe global warming [b]is caused by people and industry[/b].[/quote] There's a scientific community that believes global warming, global cooling, and climate disruption is caused by people and industry. And there's a scientific community that has proved this is a weather cycle that has occurred multiple times over the last few million years at least. So whose right?
-
Both are. The earth naturally heats up and cools, but evidence has shown that humans do in fact effect the climate in a negative way. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere has raised an incredible amount, which has not only effected the global temperatures, but also the organisms on earth.
-
What's to say it's negative? We damn a river it's "negative" to the river and wildlife but provides power to keep up comfortable. mining for coal and drilling for oil is "bad" to many but has been jet fuel for human advancement.
-
It depends on your perspective on what's negative, but to the earth, to the environment, it is negative.
-
Proof has been found that carbon dioxide levels were higher millions of years ago than they are right now. They go up, they go down. Apparently humans have very little or no effect at all.
-
Edited by Lucanatic: 5/8/2016 6:26:25 PMhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Vy-DCEQpDqA https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm https://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-is-causing-global-warming [b][u]Though natural amounts of carbon dioxide have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm),today’s levels are around 400 ppm. That’s 40% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years.[/u][/b] [b][u][How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels.[/u][/b] http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains Need more evidence? I can keep the links coming.
-
[quote]Though natural amounts of carbon dioxide have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm),today’s levels are around 400 ppm. That’s 40% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years.[/quote] I said levels were higher millions of years ago. Not 800,000 years ago. This is what you call doctoring the results. Why do they have to do this if they believe the cause is so absolute? [quote]How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels.[/quote] You proved my point. They're saying the extra ppm of CO2 does not have the fingerprint they're used to finding. They don't know where it comes from so they assume it's from human influence. There's no cross analysis with emissions from vehicles, factories, etc. to prove this. [quote]Need more evidence? I can keep the links coming.[/quote] Sorry, your links are glorified hypotheses.
-
And liberals actually believe 97% of scientist believe in global warming. Yet not one has told me where that number came from. I know, do you? [spoiler]hint: it's a lie[/spoiler]
-
I have never heard that number, but I also have never heard a trustworthy scientist/environmentalist publicly claim that global warming is false and provide evidence to support their claims, unlike the opposite. There is concrete fact and evidence that supports and shows global warming.
-
Both sides have concrete facts. To say they don't means your plugging your ears and making noise to drown out the answer you don't want. All I'm saying is some are coming forth with whatever evidence they find and some (liberal agenda types) only bring evidence that helps them.
