markdavd

I will never click on the 'My Link' because it tells me the poster doesn't think the link is important enough to take 5 seconds to give a title.

We would see most of the diseases we vaccinate against make a comeback. Ever see what Polio can do to the human body? IDK. What happens when dozens of kids at the same school come down with one of the diseases we immunize against?

This is the scary part. It won't take much for one of these diseases to gain a foothold among the un-vaccinated students.

Why the arguing? If I weren't vaccinating my kids, I'd for sure want to make sure the doctor was keeping up on all of the old diseases they no longer see on a regular basis. I would think any good parent would want the same. Just because a doctor doesn't require vaccinations doesn't men he keeps up with diseases that many consider to be dead because they are not common? How long would it take the average doctor to diagnose polio or diphtheria?

I guess if I was looking for a doctor that was OK with not immunizing, one of the first questions I would ask is if they would be able to quickly diagnose and treat all of the diseases that the immunizations were for, or if it would take longer simply because they were not familiar with them.

I can quote scientist after scientist that says otherwise, but if it's not on NPR, I know it will be a waste of time.

I know you will never believe it unless the Ultra-progressive propaganda arm of the DNC tells you so (i.e. NPR), but there is no real scientific evidence that weather extremes are NOT more frequent. Even Prof Richard Muller, who Pubby gleefullly brought to everyone's attention says so. On example is Katrina was extreme because of location, not the hurricane itself. As far as predictions, did you know that in 1988, Hansen predicted that Manhattan’s West Side Highway would be submerged by 2008: Here's another: James Hansen 1986: Within 15 Years Temps Will be Hotter Than Past

Where did I name names?

I agree, but TP seems to believe it's an every day occurrence. Maybe it is for him i if it is, it would explain alot. He's probably still dwelling on a 17year old thug who was acting suspicious and started whomping on the local neighborhood watch person while yelling 'bring it on'.

Most of this probably made sense in your head, but lost something between there and the keyboard. As far as your last line, please give an example of when and where you would go up to somebody in person and tell them to 'bring it on'.

It depends on the people and the context. Two totally unrelated topics - but if I were approached by a gang or thug shouting 'bring it on' I would hope I was carrying concealed if they mean to do violence to me or mine. Is your kind of 'bring it on' limited to posts on a message board, or do you stand up to a person or crowd and yell the same thing face to face? ???????

Unicorns rock! BTW - No, it's not getting warm. Look closely and you'll see ice has formed around the pan.

It's obvious some aren't capable of thinking for themselves when presented with facts that counter their beliefs, so they make it about the messenger than the message. Of course, the warmest 'scientists' do the same thing. They refuse to debate the topic, instead attack those who have real data that counters the massaged and cherry picked data they present. The warmests know they don't have to win over other scientists, just the liberal press who will force feed their 'findings' to the masses.

Congratulations! You found one person who changed their mind. Of course, the paper he published was subjected to peer review and was rejected. Their analysis did not support their conclusions. http://www.rossmckitrick.com/ As far as smoking, there is provable empirical evidence it causes cancer. The same can't be said for AGW.

Can any of you blind believers explain why Hanson (see the op's original post) didn't consult this chart before publishing his non peer-reviewed paper? One look sees his premise is wrong. Also, can anyone explain why he didn't test his theory before publishing. BTW - in the REAL the scientific community, the proper way to publish is to present your findings to a peers to be reviewed, and your theories tested.

(I see you're still too lazy to give your links a title.) I can search blindly too. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=climate+change+false&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35 You said a majority of scientists believe in this. Show me a current list along with their credentials. BTW - are we talking about natural climate change, or anthropogenic global warming?

Please provide a credible source for that statement. The web site I posted is run by those with degrees in those fields, so why don't you respect them? They aren't getting the big government grants the way the warmests are. In fact, they aren't getting big money from anyone.

Are you saying you've investigated their claim about being the most viewed climate site and can disprove it. At the same time, I imagine you are able to discredit the scientists from around the world that contribute to the site. Or is it about the fact that Hansen's paper has been shredded by real scientists.

You mean like The world's most viewed climate website ? BTW - The theories in Hansen's paper have already been shredded by real scientists. Even you should recognize that the fact that he didn't submit it for peer review should raise many red flags. (For the best links on this, including one to the NY times, simply go to the web site above.)

Typical liberal response. Can't refute the evidence in front of you, so you attack those bringing it to your attention. The folks who run that site are NOT crackpots. They've been involved with climate and weather research for decades. One of them is a little embarrassed because his dog is one of the alleged 20,000 scientists who believe in AGW.

This is something we agree on.

Here's one from the same Farm industry newsletter Rhett posted above: The Drought Has Ratcheted Up Emotions Summary: Seventeen meat and dairy groups, lead by the national pork and beef organizations, have formally asked the EPA to waive the requirement for the national to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol this year, freeing up 4.5 billion bushels of corn. The groups say the supply of corn is needed for livestock and to ensure prices do not drive livestock producers out of business. The corn growers has opposed the action, saying it is too early to know how much of a corn de

That article is over a year old. Here's one from last week: Drought, Ethanol Big Part of July’s Spike in Gas Prices

The 'science' has been acknowledged and torn apart by real scientists: NASA’s James Hansen’s big cherry pick

Imagine what would happen to the price of both chicken feed and gas if they suspended the mandate for putting chicken feed (ethanol) in gasoline for the next year or two.