View Poll Results: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

Voters
268. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    41 15.30%
  • Tim Pawlenty

    9 3.36%
  • John Huntsman

    0 0%
  • Mitch Daniels

    15 5.60%
  • Sarah Palin

    4 1.49%
  • Newt Gingrich

    6 2.24%
  • Michele Bachmann

    2 0.75%
  • Donald Trump

    3 1.12%
  • Ron Paul

    172 64.18%
  • Other (specify)

    16 5.97%
Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 458

Thread: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

  1. #291
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amazed View Post
    *"Perry does not believe there is valid scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming. He has said several times that there is no scientific consensus on the issue."

    LOL.....consensus, really?
    There are as many who dispute it as there are that joined in the "consensus". GW just happens to be the Religion of choice for the Left.

    *"Perry opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions because he says it would have "devastating implications" for the Texas economy and energy industry."

    Not to mention it would devastate the World Economy for an unproven "theory".

    *"Perry supports Arizona immigration law SB 1070 and is willing to sign a similar bill in Texas."

    Good luck with this, most American's do.
    If you believe that the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling phases which is largely determined by the cycles of naturally occurring green house gases then its only logical to believe that man is speeding it up. Saying other wise is just denying science in general.

  2. #292
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Nope sorry,nd with all due respect....there is large disagreement within the Scientific Community, to deny this is to have one's head in the sand.

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    If you believe that the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling phases which is largely determined by the cycles of naturally occurring green house gases then its only logical to believe that man is speeding it up. Saying other wise is just denying science in general.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  3. #293
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amazed View Post
    Nope sorry,nd with all due respect....there is large disagreement within the Scientific Community, to deny this is to have one's head in the sand.
    The only ones who deny the man made affects on climate/global warming or whatever you want to call it are the ones paid for by companies and Conservative think tanks.

    Unless you can link me to an article from a non-biased scientific report I'll continue to hold that man is accelerating the change in climate as a fact.

  4. #294
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    The only ones who deny the man made affects on climate/global warming or whatever you want to call it are the ones paid for by companies and Conservative think tanks.
    Pretty much every scientist worth his salt admits that anthropogenic global warming is happening. The only difference that exists is to what degree humans are responsible. Are we playing a minor role, or a large one?
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #295
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    This the same out you all use

    Just because you "choose" to believe the hysteria in no way makes it true....you are even willing to dismiss all of the evidence of fraud disclosed over the last two years from the very "scientists" you want to believe.

    Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[17]


    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    The only ones who deny the man made affects on climate/global warming or whatever you want to call it are the ones paid for by companies and Conservative think tanks.

    Unless you can link me to an article from a non-biased scientific report I'll continue to hold that man is accelerating the change in climate as a fact.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  6. #296
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Chris de Freitas,Pubs Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[18]
    David Douglass, Pubssolid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19]
    Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20]
    William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[24]
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[25]
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26]
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27]
    Tim Patterson, Pubs paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[28][29]
    Ian Plimer,Pubs Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[30]
    Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03 C of the total ~33 C)."[31]
    Nicola Scafetta, Pubs research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[32][33]
    Nir Shaviv, Pubs astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[34]
    Fred Singer, Pubs Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[35][36] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[37]
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[38]
    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[39]
    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[40]
    Henrik Svensmark, Pubs Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[41]
    Jan Veizer, Pubs environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[42]
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  7. #297
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Now of course you are free to through EVERY name and show where they've been "paid" to make these statements.


    GW is your Religion, and Al Gore is your "priest".
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  8. #298
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    from cpwill

    Republicans don't give you credit for your identity group like democrats will.
    Oh how incorrect that statement is. A bunch of angry white folks who feel this is no longer the America they remember are voting for other angry white folks who feel this is no longer the America they remember. That is 100% group identity voting.
    Last edited by haymarket; 05-19-11 at 11:11 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #299
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amazed View Post
    This the same out you all use

    Just because you "choose" to believe the hysteria in no way makes it true....you are even willing to dismiss all of the evidence of fraud disclosed over the last two years from the very "scientists" you want to believe.

    Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[17]
    And what that little tid-bit doesn't tell you is that we have ice cores that contain a history of earth carbon and are mapped to temperature which shows a direct correlation between temperature and the amount of carbon present

  10. #300
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

    LOL, now you want to change the argument.

    You set a standard, I am asking you to loive up to that standard...you need to get started on ALL of those Scientists


    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    And what that little tid-bit doesn't tell you is that we have ice cores that contain a history of earth carbon and are mapped to temperature which shows a direct correlation between temperature and the amount of carbon present
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •