« Back to story "Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?"

Story Comments

Posted by: Endoscopy 1 year, 7 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Another Goreabite following the sainted Al. Never let any facts bother you just keep the faith. Saint Al has spoken so you must obey.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
7 Replies

loading ...
- Neutral
  Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Always with the ad hominem attacks coming from global warming deniers. How about science to back up your dogma. Oh that's right. It wouldn't be dogma anymore.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  5 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
    - Neutral
      wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Surprisingly, I did not find any statistical analysis in the story. It quotes a few bits from studies here and there, but for the most part, it is an opinion piece. He certainly has the right to have the opinion, but his opinion certainly doesn't make it empirical evidence.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      2 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        There was a lot of evidence that was taken from the reports of several scientific groups. You don't want to look at what was referred to. The information was what the statistics told. Of course you would rather bore everybody to tears by having the statistics from several different reports put in the story.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Cherry-picking data out of context from studies does not provide empirical evidence of a trend or outcome. Just as I wouldn't accept such data from those that support the hypothesis based on such evidence presentation, I would not accept it in this presentation either.
        You are jumping to a conclusion based on the amount of evidence and presentation that you would not feel is acceptable if presented by the opposing view.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
  - Neutral
    bobo-in-texas1 year, 7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Dio how about this for an attack?
    "I suspect you lick the dog sh*t off Rupurt Murdocks shoes, and lap up the trickle down from Gush Lamebaugh's pant leg, and suck the brown effluent from Glen Beck's Mormon rectum."
    Courtesy of your fellow Believer behindcurtain.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
- Neutral
  GLee1 year, 7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  THE CHURCH OF GORE
  hehehehe......
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  0 Replies
  
  loading ...