• The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

  • Country

    United States

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    SE Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, I have a question regarding these micro-investing apps, the ones that round up to next dollar and then invest that for you. I searched and couldn't find anything, so if this has already been addressed just point me in the right direction please. My question is, and I realize that they are not big money makers, but are they legit, do they actually work? Can anybody offer and insight? Thanks, WHS
  2. What I have learned from this thread is that stupidity is alive and well. Some folks literally cherry pick a sentence out of an entire article, change the wording and then present it as if it is fact. Then when your lies and manipulations are pointed out, you start into trying to discredit someone. Frankly it saddens me, as I honestly thought when I entered into this that there was some intelligence here, but alas, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. So go ahead, continue to lie to yourself and bury your heads in the sand... I for one am moving on, because the ignorance is just too overpowering. Have a nice day
  3. Oh and by the way, Mark Morano has been proven to be a total fraud. He has zero scientific background, and is totally funded by the oil lobby.
  4. Sixgun, I have posted a lot of information, from multiple scientific sources and you have posted nothing. In fact even the "gotcha" moment you thought you had turned out to be wrong. No buddy, it is you that trying to misinform, because you have literally posted nothing but opinion based on exactly zero facts. And now, the very paper you said supported your opinion, you are calling fraud. Seems to me the only fraud is you. But you are right about one thing, I should have never gotten into this debate... I mean I know better than to get into debates with people on the internet, especially those that think they have all the answers and know everything. It's like arguing with a four year old...
  5. HAHAHAHAHA! Game, set and match buddy boy, you lose! See you clearly failed to even read the reference, all you did was cherry pick a sentence, but conveniently left out the rest. Here, let me finish the sentence for you, and this from the exact same paragraph. "We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies." Robust means strong and healthy by the way.
  6. Then we have nothing further to discuss, because all you are doing is discounting what you clearly don't understand. In fact, based on your statement that it is not relevant or conclusive tells me you didn't even bother to read or research anything. sheesh...
  7. It is science after all! In that we totally agree, and just so you know, I am not hooked into any of this, as one little discovery and it could all change tomorrow. But this is what we know now. As far as your Italian scientists. I read their petition and even the senate report. It is very interesting, and they do not deny climate change, in fact they only deny that reducing the use of fossil fuels will control the climate. What they are actually arguing is that the money and effort spent trying to reduce/control change would be better spent in other ways to prepare the world for the inevitable. So now your argument is not that climate change is not real, but you believe that we should be spending money, time and resources developing ways to survive instead.
  8. I think you are on the right track, but you are leaving out a ton of relevant information here. I suggest you keep researching. And as far as keeping it ambiguous, I think you need to broaden your horizon. A ten minute google search reveals scads of information, and if you look at the links I have posted earlier, all of the information is there along with a list of links and resources as to where information was gathered.
  9. Did you read the link I attached... It is not from the UN climate panel. And it actually includes links to hundreds of associations, as well as listing the references. So yes, it is actually true. Of course if you can provide some credible link or source I would be interested to look at it. It is science after all...
  10. Sorry AgCoyote, but I think you missed my point, however I do appreciate the clarification and that makes a little more sense. And don't get me wrong, I can't stand hypocrites and god knows we have enough of that going on these days already! And my statements were examples in an attempt to clarify, they were not put there as arguments, hence why I stated, here is an example. And in your last statement you say, "The truth is weather can't be accurately predicted and neither can the future of the climate.". And you know what, I agree. However, that does not mean that good science does not provide us with information or that it should be ignored simply because we don't like it. And that is half the problem with the country these days. People who refuse to believe the truth, because it does not meet with their desired ideals. You may not like climate change, but it is happening, even you said it, "the earth has been cooling". Well that is climate change and no it is not an exact science, but then again, no science is...
  11. Sixgun, This is what I said “Climate change is any significant long-term change in the expected patterns of average weather of a region (or the whole Earth) over a significant period of time. Climate change is about abnormal variations to the climate, and the effects of these variations on other parts of the Earth. “ This is what you said “Climate Change' is something that is not normal or natural - it is something that has/ is happening that is abnormal and is causing changes from the expected long-term climate?” emphasis mine… Leaving out specific words in order to change the meaning is exactly what you did. It is about abnormal variations, and the effects of these variations on other parts of the earth. You completely reworded the sentence, leaving out key phrases in an attempt to change the very definition so that you can use it a pretext to support your opinion that some people think climate change is not a normal occurrence. And then you attempt to support it by stating, “Well i would say the definition is has several interpretations.” Well, it only has several interpretations when change the entire structure… As far as the rest, you really contradict yourself… You speak of solar minimums, well you are correct that one is due… because they occur approximately every 11 years. I would think that if you had done some research you would know this. However, based on the grand solar minimum theory and millions dying as a result, you would have to believe that climate change is occurring at a drastic rate, and the upcoming grand solar minimum will push it over the brink… And yet you say, “There is no global warming – not since 1998.” And lastly, you state Carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Well you are somewhat correct, however what you are missing is that excessive carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, therefore the more we produce, the worse the effect. And that is the very basis of the argument. At this point, I will continue to believe the people whose job it is to know these things. Not some politician, nor some celebrity or some moronic shock jock, but from actual scientists and people who study these things. As I said, even the 100 Italian scientists believe climate change is occurring. And my final thought here is this. "Science is all about the evidence. That’s all. Evidence is gathered that either supports or nullifies the principles, hypotheses and theories of the natural universe. Occasionally, it’s hard to tell if it reinforces or refutes an idea, so you keep repeating. But a real scientist keeps gathering evidence, because they’re never 100% sure, like Dawkins and his lack of acceptance of a creator. We leave the 100%’s to the pseudoscientists."
  12. You do realize that is completely contrary to what I said! Seriously, I enjoy a good conversation/debate with folks, but come on sixgun, that is total bull! You literally took my answer and reworded it so that you can try to fit it into your presumptions in an attempt to make yourself right. You want to have a debate, fine, let's debate, but have a little integrity.
  13. 1, 2, 3 & 4 = Total straw man arguments. In fact, if these are your reasons for denying climate change, then it seems you have done nothing but listen to conspirators and not done any actual research at all. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What about the proponents that do live a lifestyle that mirrors their belief? I mean by your logic, if not living the lifestyle is evidence against climate change, then those that do are providing you the evidence for it. And what about Armageddon predictions. They are predictions, and by their very nature are not etched in stone. Take my example stated above about the Maldives. But here is another example. Cigarettes are bad for your health, study after study proves this and literally thousands of people die every year from tobacco use. And yet, I know people that have smoked for 60, 70, 80 years without issue. Does that mean that cigarettes are OK, simply because some people don't die from them? Same can be said of any number of things. Predictions are just that, predictions based on a certain set of circumstances. Change those circumstances and the prediction dies. And this is precisely the argument. As far as the weather, come on now, that is just a silly straw man argument. You can't predict whats going to happen tomorrow, does that mean you should not pay your bills, or eat healthy, take your medicine, etc.? I mean you could get into an accident on the way home tonight, so why not just do whatever you want eh'... That is literally what you are arguing here. And cows, sheesh.... You guys kill me. There was a study done, based on the increase in the number of cows globally as the world population has increased, where there is now a measurable release of methane from them. Nobody once stated this was the cause, only that it occurs and is contributing factor to global warming. In fact, there is so much methane that there are people actually trying to figure out how to possible harness that energy and sell it! What does that tell you... Google world population numbers. In 1951 there were 2.5 billion people and a population density of 17 people per kilometer. In 2019 the population is 7.5 billion and 52 per kilometer.
  14. No, it does not state that at all. In fact, the statement is pretty clear if you read it and take the time to comprehend it. As far as the your questions about long term, this is certainly not something that I am going to be able to answer on a silver forum. I suggest that you do I like I did and research the issue, and I think you will come to some conclusion that climate change is occurring. And I would recommend to not pigeon hole yourself into believing there is a some sort of simple solution or explanation to a complex problem. My opinion is that there are natural, normal and man made contributions to climate change and global warming, and that about all we can do is to the best we can. This can mean anything from reducing our carbon footprint, to just simply preparing for the inevitable. I mean isn't that what all of us are doing on this forum anyhow, but preparing ourselves for some eventuality? I stack gold and silver for several reasons, some of them more likely to occur, such as retirement and old age and others much less so, like WWIII in America.