Pelosi Speaks of God? The Shortest Thread Ever on ATS

a reply to: Aazadan

For what it's worth, I'm quite conservative, but CNS is on my No-Fly list. I wouldn't use it as a source just because they have an openly Evangelical Christian leaning to their reporting and are clearly catering to that Christian audience.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Evangelicals or Christians in general -- this agnostic loves 'em, but I don't want my news to go through any kind of religious filter before it gets to me.

NewsMax and InfoWars are on that same list, IMHO...

a reply to: SBMcG

They are all on my no fly list. I don't find a single source to be credible. You need to look at multiple sources all with different biases to come anywhere near the truth.

Infowars and CNN I put in the same boat as BIN.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

LMMFLWAO @ BIN...

The loony BIN of the internet.

We're at 5 pages?

I think this should be HOAXed. It is no longer the shortest ever.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Sorry, logical fallacy. 19% of US Muslims refuse to say terrorist attacks are always wrong.

More than 19% of Americans refuse to say terrorist attacks are wrong. Something like 40% of the country actively supports terrorism, they just call it "spreading Democracy".

a reply to: Aazadan

I would love to see that poll.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

I would love to see that poll.

Go look at the percent who supported action in Iraq at one point or another.

From their point of view, we were/are the terrorists.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

It's a great deal for some countries. So tell me, how much will it cost the US and what will be the gain?

How is it a great deal for some countries?

What countries are they and how do they profit?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Dishonors God ... how?

If you had read or heard Pelosi's speech, instead of reacting to a headline, perhaps you might know.

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: chr0naut

I have a personal rule that I don’t respond to posts this long after the fact – I guess I was too caught up in yesterday’s latest London Moslem terrorist slaughter to catch your reply last night, and then this morning made the mistake of hitting the golf course, so I’m starting out a little behind the curve today. Apologies...

No worries, I totally understand and I'm constantly dismayed about the murder of innocents by these criminals.

However, I sincerely feel your reply demands a response because it is replete with unprovable and outright false declarations, bad chemistry, and what I know to be leftist “one world” talking points.

For the record, I am not a climate change denier. I know the climate is changing as it always has and always will. For the record, I have a graduate degree and my minor was chemistry. I certainly don’t claim to be anything approaching an expert either way, but I can draw my conclusions based upon what we do know, including the fraud, lies, and manipulated data leftists and man-made climate hustlers are still relying upon to forward their agenda.

Before we can even begin to discuss actual climate science, we have to get past the claim that there is “scientific consensus” on the Chicken Little theory of “man-made” climate change because that consensus is based upon a mountain of faked, flawed, and bogus “science”.

How many of your claims are based upon this proven fake data?

While I am aware of the more contentious claims of climate change, as there are many variables, I was careful to avoid mention of those areas and to specifically speak only of the unequivocal science.

I am aware that the atmosphere is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. This, you have assumed, means that it cannot be destabilised. However even the most stable of arrangements have their tipping point.

The chemistry of CFC's and their effect in the Chapman Cycle, however, undoubted.

You completely blew off the fact that climate has changed – from cooler to warmer and back again, as a part of Earth’s natural rhythm since the Dawn of Time.

I didn't.

I know of Solar fluctuations, their intensity and frequency, quite well, and their effect on historic temperatures. I am aware of seasonal and other sources of climate change, too. I don't deny climate change.

The issue is that a destabilized system with negative feedback mechanisms begins to oscillate wildly as the tipping point is approached, as we are now observing with the weather. This oscillation is different and more extreme, than Solar activity should indicate.

It's kind of like the "death wobbles" on a bicycle which can worsen beyond control if not stopped early.

Your assertion was that these changes were caused by one-off catastrophic events like asteroids and volcanism. There have been millions of climate cycles in Earth’s pre-human history. That’s a hell of a lot of meteors…

You claimed that…

What is plain is that Ozone is now being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons and that the burning of fossil fuels is releasing far more greenhouse gasses now than nature could possibly release through its normal processes of decomposition and digestion.<

Let me ask you this… Assuming I don’t need to go through the basic chemistry with you, can you explain to me how a compound as “heavy” as the most common human-generated CFC -- CCl₃F, “floats” all the way up through the relatively “light” troposphere into the lighter-than-air ozone layer where there’s almost no uplift?

I have flown gliders to quite high altitudes. If you have ever been trapped in a storm updraft, you'd know that the lift is so extreme that you usually have a hard time diving through it. Lift becomes more turbulent and extreme at higher altitudes. The atmosphere is stirred thermally, right up to the edge of space.

How much CFC originating on the surface ends up in the ozone layer? How much is neutralized immediately upon release by bonding or reacting with hydroxyl or nitrate radicals in the lower atmosphere?

Hardly any of the CFC's react in the lower atmosphere. They are very stable until they are catylized by ultra-violet and find a bond as amenable as the oxygen to oxygen bond of Ozone.

First, we find that the CO₂ numbers are completely faked, as is much of the “official” climate data. That compromised data is still being used to forward a lie, but because more and more people are getting wise to that lie, all of a sudden, the culprit must be CFC’s rather than carbon dioxide.

The problem with that is, CFC’s don’t cause climate change.

They do cause climate change but Ozone depletion is not the greenhouse effect. They are different things, affecting different mechanisms in the system of the biosphere.