Probably the best website
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/


Like I said even now we don't know 100% what will happen.   What we do know is we are changing the environment.  And we are almost certain its not for the better.

Wow. You read years worth of reading material in less than an hour, decided it was all wrong and then leave two government websites as references. You're joking, right? You believe what the CDC publishes about the dangers of "gun violence"?

Good luck trying to get me to voluntarily comply with your agenda.

I presume you adopt the same policy regarding all serious communicable diseases including AIDS, right?

Genetic "illnesses" are what is scary with that kind of policy.

Giving Omnigun the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he has not thought about the implications.

Whoever is "unfit" as declared by the government, will be "dealt with" FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

By the way, we don't' allow HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION, even though SCIENTIFICALLY if you experiment with one of two humans, that can produce beneficial results for THE GREATER GOOD.

Dude, you may need to some time to think about this.

But what you stated is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Let me give you another example: You and your family have certain genes that the government has determined to be detrimental to the human gene pool (doesn't matter how they determined that). You are therefore a threat to humanity. You must all be sterilized. (This was done actually several times, sometimes in Europe, sometimes in America, in the past).

Also, your example is not a good one. Someone with small pox is KNOWN to have small pox. That is totally different from someone who is taking a risk because he or she MIGHT contract a disease.

Also, people with guns MAY accidentally shoot another citizen. Therefore, all firearms MUST be banned because any gun is a RISK to other people in society.

Also cars. Cars MAY accidentally injure or kill another innocent civilian.

Heck, let's profile all HIGH RISK individuals (such as those who have guns, or cling to their bibles and constitutions).

I hope you see I am not exaggerating, and I am showing you clearly what is wrong with your line of thinking.

In fact this whole vaccine thing is precisely to make a precedent for socialization of America.

I believe in ultimate freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on others.  Say what you want, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect my freedoms.  Its why I think owning guns is great.  Owning a gun does absolutely nothing against me.  Unless you purposely use it against me, none of my freedoms are subjugated.  Abort fetuses all you want its your body its your choice.  (I personally believe life starts when you are able to live on your own out of the womb.  AKA birth).  Drink all you want as long as you don't drive drunk or do something that might effect my freedoms.  Fuck hookers all you want, doesn't affect me.  Marry who you want, I don't give a fuck what happens in your private life, doesn't affect me.  etc etc etc  When it comes to genes and sterilization I'm conflicted on this.  I actually support stopping people reproducing if they have bad genetics like skizo or genetic physical/mental ailments.  We need some natural selection here, we no longer really practice it.   The only thing stopping me from fully supporting is personal freedoms.  Do i consider reproduction a right.  I'm still not 100% on this.  Cars are a risk both parties assume when they get on the public road.  We are both forfitting our freedoms to an extent.

Think of it this way.  Say you got aids, its your duty to try and not pass it on.  Same with any infectious diseases. 

Wow. You read years worth of reading material in less than an hour, decided it was all wrong and then leave two government websites as references. You're joking, right? You believe what the CDC publishes about the dangers of "gun violence"?

Good luck trying to get me to voluntarily comply with your agenda.

The last website you linked is the only real credible one I have to read up on that one.  Just cause it comes from the government doesn't mean its automatically bad and wrong....there is sources to back stuff up...

Genetic "illnesses" are what is scary with that kind of policy.

Giving Omnigun the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he has not thought about the implications.

Whoever is "unfit" as declared by the government, will be "dealt with" FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

By the way, we don't' allow HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION, even though SCIENTIFICALLY if you experiment with one of two humans, that can produce beneficial results for THE GREATER GOOD.

I've never said "dealt with"  I just said not reproduce.  They don't gotta die....that's infringing on their freedoms.  Also I never mentioned human experimentation idk where you got that from.

I presume you adopt the same policy regarding all serious communicable diseases including AIDS, right?

Yes don't spread aids.....if you got a communicable disease its your duty to notify others that might get it and to do your best to not spread it, if its not curable.

I believe in ultimate freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on others.  Say what you want, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect my freedoms.  Its why I think owning guns is great.  Owning a gun does absolutely nothing against me.  Unless you purposely use it against me, none of my freedoms are subjugated.  Abort fetuses all you want its your body its your choice.  (I personally believe life starts when you are able to live on your own out of the womb.  AKA birth).  Drink all you want as long as you don't drive drunk or do something that might effect my freedoms.  Fuck hookers all you want, doesn't affect me.  Marry who you want, I don't give a fuck what happens in your private life, doesn't affect me.  etc etc etc  When it comes to genes and sterilization I'm conflicted on this.  I actually support stopping people reproducing if they have bad genetics like skizo or genetic physical/mental ailments.  We need some natural selection here, we no longer really practice it.   The only thing stopping me from fully supporting is personal freedoms.  Do i consider reproduction a right.  I'm still not 100% on this.  Cars are a risk both parties assume when they get on the public road.  We are both forfitting our freedoms to an extent.

Think of it this way.  Say you got aids, its your duty to try and not pass it on.  Same with any infectious diseases.

You need to really sit down and rethink all this.

Because what you wrote is exactly what the New World Order type government is trying to achieve.

And they can't do that when people have guns (because they would resist). So they need to take away the guns.

THEN they can enact their grand plan of who is fit to live, and who is not fit.

They will also ASSIGN people jobs. You won't be able to choose. For example, you and your entire family will do mining. We don't need that many doctors and scientists but we do need a lot of miners.

Anyone not following is, gets no Obamacare, and your digital cash will be turned off so you can't buy food.

This is top down management of humanity. Of course, they will decide who is at the top.

You need to really sit down and rethink all this.

Because what you wrote is exactly what the New World Order type government is trying to achieve.

And they can't do that when people have guns (because they would resist). So they need to take away the guns.

THEN they can enact their grand plan of who is fit to live, and who is not fit.

They will also ASSIGN people jobs. You won't be able to choose. For example, you and your entire family will do mining. We don't need that many doctors and scientists but we do need a lot of miners.

Anyone not following is, gets no Obamacare, and your digital cash will be turned off so you can't buy food.

This is top down management of humanity. Of course, they will decide who is at the top.

Why do you say who is fit to live.  I never mentioned killing people......I literally advocate personal freedoms.  Death is kinda against that.  You really are trying to spin this stuff off. Never mentioned anything about assigned jobs and no choices.   Still against literally what I said about ultimate personal freedom. 

Why do you say who is fit to live.  I never mentioned killing people......I literally advocate personal freedoms.  Death is kinda against that.  You really are trying to spin this stuff off. Never mentioned anything about assigned jobs and no choices.   Still against literally what I said about ultimate personal freedom.

You mentioned needing some natural selection because we don't practice it anymore.

If you are really for that, NATURAL selection, you would be totally against vaccination of any kind in fact.

Survival only of the fittest.

You mentioned needing some natural selection because we don't practice it anymore.

If you are really for that, NATURAL selection, you would be totally against vaccination of any kind in fact.

Survival only of the fittest.

Natural selection in terms of genetics.  The resistant to all diseases is impractical.  Also you can cure diseases (vaccines) you cant fix genetics.

Natural selection in terms of genetics.  The resistant to all diseases is impractical.  Also you can cure diseases (vaccines) you cant fix genetics.

Come on man, you are cheating with your analysis.

You give yourself exceptions when probelms are found in the line of thinking.

Natural selection in terms of genetics is precisely why vaccinations should be banned, and in fact nobody receives any medical care at all.

Heck, let's everyone just fight it out in the streets. Smartest and strongest will be king.

Come on man, you are cheating with your analysis.

You give yourself exceptions when probelms are found in the line of thinking.

Natural selection in terms of genetics is precisely why vaccinations should be banned, and in fact nobody receives any medical care at all.

Heck, let's everyone just fight it out in the streets. Smartest and strongest will be king.

Natural selection in a reliable modern society simply cant be that.  It would be too archaic and civilization would have no purpose in such a world.  What is needed is a balance.  So far the only thing technology hasent solved for us is certain diseases and genetics.  The treatable conditions that can simply be solved by a vaccine should be.  While the tougher stuff like genetics is solved by not reproducing.   In the end you have stronger better humans.  Inb4 you start calling me a nazi.  I don't care what color of your skin you are as long as u got good genetics lol.

I cant wait for technology to catch up so everyone can edit the genes of their kids and have them born with no defects or issues.  Then we can have smarter, stronger humans and take over the universe!

From my little research on this.  It appears you are referring to the 70's were scientists were trying to predict stuff they fully didnt understand.  Science has come a long way.  What they did know back then was something was changing with the climate and the changes were happening recently.  This is when humans started to really affect the earths climate.  For example aresol sprays.
This a good read on that http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php?src=share

The ONLY difference between back then and now is Al Gore showed people how to make massiive amounts of money off scaring people over something we probably can't change even if it were 100% proven to be true.

Probably the best website
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/


Like I said even now we don't know 100% what will happen.   What we do know is we are changing the environment.  And we are almost certain its not for the better.

                         

"Almost certain" does not equal scientific fact, which has been the whole point of this debate.  The majority of political professionals were 99% certain Hillary was going to have a cake walk on election night (Google cake walk -- before your time, too!).

This issue is, you can't redistribute the wealth of nations globally based on "almost certain."  As I said, scientists make mistakes all the time.  If you think the 70s was that long ago, you really need to wake up.  We put men on the moon in the 60s, for goodness sake!

When Iraq set Kuwait's oil fields on fire as they withdrew, the "scientists of the 90s" predicted all kinds of environmental disasters from the oil clouds, including nuclear winter scenarios from the dark clouds blocking the sunlight.  None of that happened.  Why?  Because they didn't think about the rain! LOL!  Rain washed all that pollution out of the air.  None of the predictions came true.

Sorry to tell you, but as a scientist myself, science was never meant to be a religion in which we should put all of our trust.  Science is made of processes and methods and theories and proofs.  Theories only become fact when they are shown to be correct and repeatable.  I don't think these climate scientists have been able to do much more than provide the answers the people (governments) paying their grants wished for.

That happened sorta before my time, I'm not THAT old.

yes, but if you have done complete research on the topic, you need to know what scientists used to consider to be "fact"

We are only guessing what bad stuff will occur.

so wait, you went from scientific proof to "guessing"
even a "scientist at heart" should know that's BS

Global warming was never a good term to use.  The globe is indeed warming but its more climate change as not areas are effected equally.

you still have yet to acknowledge that temperature cycles (climate change?) occurred frequently in the past
or was this so long ago that it doesn't matter too?

Sorry to tell you, but as a scientist myself, science was never meant to be a religion in which we should put all of our trust.  Science is made of processes and methods and theories and proofs.  Theories only become fact when they are shown to be correct and repeatable.

maybe "scientists at heart" are held to a different standard
 

you still have yet to acknowledge that temperature cycles (climate change?) occurred frequently in the past
or was this so long ago that it doesn't matter too?

None of the past temperature cycles have been man made.  Or in other words humans contributing to the change.  This is unprecedented.  As for my "guessing" on that the effects will be bad.  I am basing this off of the simple empirical facts that the climate is currently changing unpredictably and quickly.  Humans are the cause and NEVER has the world changed this quickly that I recall.   Those past other temperature cycles were thousands of years long.  And if I remember correctly not that great for the inhabitants of earth during that time.  All this climate change has happened in the past 100.  As for I needing to do "complete research" on old disproved theories that's a waste of time. The object of science is to find facts.  Then form opinions/theories based on those facts.  Those scientists opinions/theories were disproved.  The facts of the co2 and gasses in the air from humans remain a constant fact.  It is up to us to figure out a theory that is proven correct. 

to @ flapp
"Sorry to tell you, but as a scientist myself, science was never meant to be a religion in which we should put all of our trust.  Science is made of processes and methods and theories and proofs.  Theories only become fact when they are shown to be correct and repeatable.  I don't think these climate scientists have been able to do much more than provide the answers the people (governments) paying their grants wished for."
This is basically correct minus the last sentence.  Just cause they formed incorrect theories.  The facts that humans are causing climate change is real.   Its in the air readings,  measured by instruments.  THAT is a fact.  Everything else is a theory at this point.  But climate CHANGE is real.  Something is changing and humans are at fault. 

None of the past temperature cycles have been man made.  Or in other words humans contributing to the change.  This is unprecedented.  As for my "guessing" on that the effects will be bad.  I am basing this off of the simple empirical facts that the climate is currently changing unpredictably and quickly.  Humans are the cause and NEVER has the world changed this quickly that I recall.   Those past other temperature cycles were thousands of years long.  And if I remember correctly not that great for the inhabitants of earth during that time.  All this climate change has happened in the past 100.  As for I needing to do "complete research" on old disproved theories that's a waste of time. The object of science is to find facts.  Then form opinions/theories based on those facts.  Those scientists opinions/theories were disproved.  The facts of the co2 and gasses in the air from humans remain a constant fact.  It is up to us to figure out a theory that is proven correct. 

to @ flapp
"Sorry to tell you, but as a scientist myself, science was never meant to be a religion in which we should put all of our trust.  Science is made of processes and methods and theories and proofs.  Theories only become fact when they are shown to be correct and repeatable.  I don't think these climate scientists have been able to do much more than provide the answers the people (governments) paying their grants wished for."
This is basically correct minus the last sentence.  Just cause they formed incorrect theories.  The facts that humans are causing climate change is real.   Its in the air readings,  measured by instruments.  THAT is a fact.  Everything else is a theory at this point.  But climate CHANGE is real.  Something is changing and humans are at fault.

people who are more than scientists at heart know that coincidence does not equal causation

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason,
and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt,
is like administering medicine to the dead,
or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.

--Thomas Paine

I think when someone asks us to write a check or taxes to fund their solutions is when we have to stop and question the validity of their conclusions and the purity of their motivations. 

If you can't stand up to that scrutiny, don't blame us when we tell you to come back when you have some evidence that the solutions will solve anything.

Most of the conclusions do stand up to scrutiny but we have paid "skeptics" whose job it is to create doubt. They obfuscate, they misrepresent data, they make arguments that sound legit but are not scientific, they imply conspiracy, they do anything to create doubt in the science. They feed those who have a bias or don't like the consequences of the scientific conclusions.  You can see they don't have intentions on finding the truth.

There are objective people who look at and question the science. Sometimes they find flaws and sometimes they confirm the data, but they don't go screaming on TV about Obama, the left wing, solar companies, etc.

The climate change denial group's arguments essentially exist to disprove conclusions that suggest man is changing the climate. That is the first problem of why they really aren't scientific. They aren't doing their own science, they aren't trying to learn anything, they are only trying to disprove conclusions they do not like. That is junk science.