Time: Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

Here's one but he's right there are many...

Question for climate science deniers: Can you name any scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming?

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me. I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming. No one was able to provide one. That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue. The scientific community has reached consensus. The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject. Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations but...spin away and run boards run.....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations  but...spin away and run boards run.....

What is it that you feel I'm running from?  You mentioned a thread where I asked for any scientific organization that denies global warming.  You failed to provide one.  Somehow, you're now concluding that I'm running away?

From who?  From what?

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations  but...spin away and run boards run.....

What is it that you feel I'm running from?  You mentioned a thread where I asked for any scientific organization that denies global warming.  You failed to provide one.  Somehow, you're now concluding that I'm running away?

From who?  From what?

The fact that most organizations exist by government funding and that they have been co-erst by a corporate controlled government. Much like most "scientific organizations...go along to get along...whistle-blowers will be terminated. truth is treason in the empire of lies R. P.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VZGhSUb0cTY

Here's a bunch of them and their thrashing by the "real" scientists.....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations  but...spin away and run boards run.....

What is it that you feel I'm running from?  You mentioned a thread where I asked for any scientific organization that denies global warming.  You failed to provide one.  Somehow, you're now concluding that I'm running away?

From who?  From what?

The fact that most organizations exist by government funding and that they have been co-erst by a corporate controlled government. Much like most "scientific organizations...go along to get along...whistle-blowers will be terminated. truth is treason in the empire of lies  R. P.

I'm running away from the idea that there is a massive conspiracy involving every scientific organization on the planet? I don't feel that "running away from" is an accurate description there. "Laughing at" is probably more suitable.

No, I'm not running away from that. Feel free to make that case and I'll be here to respond and laugh. I assure you there will be no running.

Speaking of running away, however: https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t20244p15-both-new-and-continuing-jobless-claims-remain-at-near-historic-lows#239038

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VZGhSUb0cTY

Here's a bunch of them and their thrashing by the "real" scientists.....

As you continue to respond to my thread that you just brought up, I can't help but notice that each of your posts are missing a key factor: the name of one - just one - scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.

Is that because you don't understand the question? Is it because you have finally come to realize that there aren't any scientific organizations that deny anthropogenic global warming? What gives?

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations  but...spin away and run boards run.....

What is it that you feel I'm running from?  You mentioned a thread where I asked for any scientific organization that denies global warming.  You failed to provide one.  Somehow, you're now concluding that I'm running away?

From who?  From what?

The fact that most organizations exist by government funding and that they have been co-erst by a corporate controlled government. Much like most "scientific organizations...go along to get along...whistle-blowers will be terminated. truth is treason in the empire of lies  R. P.

I'm running away from the idea that there is a massive conspiracy involving every scientific organization on the planet?  I don't feel that "running away from" is an accurate description there.  "Laughing at" is probably more suitable.

No, I'm not running away from that.  Feel free to make that case and I'll be here to respond and laugh.   I assure you there will be no running.

Speaking of running away, however:  https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t20244p15-both-new-and-continuing-jobless-claims-remain-at-near-historic-lows#239038

Well I don't deny that you are a considerable source of hot air....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations  but...spin away and run boards run.....

What is it that you feel I'm running from?  You mentioned a thread where I asked for any scientific organization that denies global warming.  You failed to provide one.  Somehow, you're now concluding that I'm running away?

From who?  From what?

The fact that most organizations exist by government funding and that they have been co-erst by a corporate controlled government. Much like most "scientific organizations...go along to get along...whistle-blowers will be terminated. truth is treason in the empire of lies  R. P.

I'm running away from the idea that there is a massive conspiracy involving every scientific organization on the planet?  I don't feel that "running away from" is an accurate description there.  "Laughing at" is probably more suitable.

No, I'm not running away from that.  Feel free to make that case and I'll be here to respond and laugh.   I assure you there will be no running.

Speaking of running away, however:  https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t20244p15-both-new-and-continuing-jobless-claims-remain-at-near-historic-lows#239038

Well I don't deny that you are a considerable source of hot air....

Got it. So the reason why you're not able to produce even one scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming is because there is a massive, global conspiracy involving every scientific organization on the planet. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Cough cough.

I think the thing that is really bothersome is how the progressives, Boards included since he started this post, is the appearance now there truly was an underlying fight with the right to homosexual marriage.

Personally, I don't care who marries who or who sins how or whether the country is legit now or going to hell in a handbasket. I have no control over any of that.

What I have control over is my belief system. I think I've shared a few times that I keep it simple with Jesus. Read the Sermon on the Mount and live from there.

But with the mindset of Boards, in his original post, he's on a mission now - now that SCOTUS has broken down the parameters of what marriage is - to destroy Christianity. We aren't educated in scientific matters so we must be silenced...

He says "religion" but unless he comes back to talk about what religion he wishes to see decimated, I'm fearing it's Christianity.

Wow...so soon the truth just comes flying out from behind the curtain...

Homosexuals must feel used. They were only fighting for their love for their partner to be accepted in marriage just as a straight couple. But, according to Boards...it's much more than that...next step on the march to destroy religion is
...and then what...and then what....

Again, who's the bigot? Where is the hatred?

Alway at the total extremes...

SheWrites wrote:But with the mindset of Boards, in his original post, he's on a mission now - now that SCOTUS has broken down the parameters of what marriage is - to destroy Christianity.  We aren't educated in scientific matters so we must be silenced...

My thread is about ending tax exemptions for religious institutions.

What is it that you think happens, exactly, when an institution pays taxes?

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cool so it was a ruse to attack Christians....good luck with that...Christians in America won't roll over and die like your Christians that are being headed by ISIS

Just as ISIS will eventually be defeated, so will Christianity.  Last week was a terrible week for religious oppression and it's only going to get worse as the information age advances.

Perhaps it is time for the church to actually contribute something productive to society rather than ignorance and immorality.

This is what you said, Boards.

THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY ! Daniel Webster (1782–1852)

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cool so it was a ruse to attack Christians....good luck with that...Christians in America won't roll over and die like your Christians that are being headed by ISIS

Just as ISIS will eventually be defeated, so will Christianity.  Last week was a terrible week for religious oppression and it's only going to get worse as the information age advances.

Perhaps it is time for the church to actually contribute something productive to society rather than ignorance and immorality.

This is what you said, Boards.

Correct.  Religion is fighting a losing battle.  There used to be all sorts of things that we looked to religion to explain.  As time moves forward and we learn more about the natural world, we look to religion to explain less and less.  It is inevitable that we will reach a point in time where we need not look to religion for anything.  That said, there will always be some people out there who will continue to prop up religion as a justification for bigoted world views such as oppression of women, homosexuals, people of other religions, etc..  But in the long run we will continue to see religion influence the world less and less.  And this is absolutely a good thing.  Never in the history of humanity has science held the dominant explanation for something, and then that explanation was replaced by a religious one.  That sort of thing only happens in the opposite direction.  People assume - on blind faith - that religion holds the answers to various phenomenon.  We then discover the real explanation and then the religious view is discarded.  This will continue to play out until there is nothing left for religion to explain.  

Moving on to the next part of my post, yes, religious institutions should start paying taxes.  

Here again, what is it that you think happens, exactly, when an institution pays taxes?

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cool so it was a ruse to attack Christians....good luck with that...Christians in America won't roll over and die like your Christians that are being headed by ISIS

Just as ISIS will eventually be defeated, so will Christianity.  Last week was a terrible week for religious oppression and it's only going to get worse as the information age advances.

Perhaps it is time for the church to actually contribute something productive to society rather than ignorance and immorality.

This is what you said, Boards.

Correct.  Religion is fighting a losing battle.  There used to be all sorts of things that we looked to religion to explain.  As time moves forward and we learn more about the natural world, we look to religion to explain less and less.  It is inevitable that we will reach a point in time where we need not look to religion for anything.  That said, there will always be some people out there who will continue to prop up religion as a justification for bigoted world views such as oppression of women, homosexuals, people of other religions, etc..  But in the long run we will continue to see religion influence the world less and less.  And this is absolutely a good thing.  Never in the history of humanity has science held the dominant explanation for something, and then that explanation was replaced by a religious one.  That sort of thing only happens in the opposite direction.  People assume - on blind faith - that religion holds the answers to various phenomenon.  We then discover the real explanation and then the religious view is discarded.  This will continue to play out until there is nothing left for religion to explain.  

Moving on to the next part of my post, yes, religious institutions should start paying taxes.  

Here again, what is it that you think happens, exactly, when an institution pays taxes?

I'm not talking taxes with you, Boards. Too overwhelmed with your true intent showing through.

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cool so it was a ruse to attack Christians....good luck with that...Christians in America won't roll over and die like your Christians that are being headed by ISIS

Just as ISIS will eventually be defeated, so will Christianity.  Last week was a terrible week for religious oppression and it's only going to get worse as the information age advances.

Perhaps it is time for the church to actually contribute something productive to society rather than ignorance and immorality.

This is what you said, Boards.

Correct.  Religion is fighting a losing battle.  There used to be all sorts of things that we looked to religion to explain.  As time moves forward and we learn more about the natural world, we look to religion to explain less and less.  It is inevitable that we will reach a point in time where we need not look to religion for anything.  That said, there will always be some people out there who will continue to prop up religion as a justification for bigoted world views such as oppression of women, homosexuals, people of other religions, etc..  But in the long run we will continue to see religion influence the world less and less.  And this is absolutely a good thing.  Never in the history of humanity has science held the dominant explanation for something, and then that explanation was replaced by a religious one.  That sort of thing only happens in the opposite direction.  People assume - on blind faith - that religion holds the answers to various phenomenon.  We then discover the real explanation and then the religious view is discarded.  This will continue to play out until there is nothing left for religion to explain.  

Moving on to the next part of my post, yes, religious institutions should start paying taxes.  

Here again, what is it that you think happens, exactly, when an institution pays taxes?

I'm not talking taxes with you, Boards.  Too overwhelmed with your true intent showing through.

Of course not.  Don't let the actual subject of the thread get in the way of your tangent.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY ! Daniel Webster (1782–1852)

Here, Boards...I'll use Teo's quote from Webster to talk TAXES with you.


Can't top that?

Oh wait...he's on old white guy. Dang, already a unfavorable mark in his direction. Maybe he was even an old rich white guy...

I don't recall.

I'm sure Oat knows. He did so well in civics so I'm sure he's equally equipped for history.

I just can't think progressive enough to argue with you Boards. You win...trust me it's easy to navigate around this place knowing those who are so bigoted against Christians.

Enjoy that tangent? Asinine or not???

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cool so it was a ruse to attack Christians....good luck with that...Christians in America won't roll over and die like your Christians that are being headed by ISIS

Just as ISIS will eventually be defeated, so will Christianity.  Last week was a terrible week for religious oppression and it's only going to get worse as the information age advances.

Perhaps it is time for the church to actually contribute something productive to society rather than ignorance and immorality.

This is what you said, Boards.

Correct.  Religion is fighting a losing battle.  There used to be all sorts of things that we looked to religion to explain.  As time moves forward and we learn more about the natural world, we look to religion to explain less and less.  It is inevitable that we will reach a point in time where we need not look to religion for anything.  That said, there will always be some people out there who will continue to prop up religion as a justification for bigoted world views such as oppression of women, homosexuals, people of other religions, etc..  But in the long run we will continue to see religion influence the world less and less.  And this is absolutely a good thing.  Never in the history of humanity has science held the dominant explanation for something, and then that explanation was replaced by a religious one.  That sort of thing only happens in the opposite direction.  People assume - on blind faith - that religion holds the answers to various phenomenon.  We then discover the real explanation and then the religious view is discarded.  This will continue to play out until there is nothing left for religion to explain.  

Moving on to the next part of my post, yes, religious institutions should start paying taxes.  

Here again, what is it that you think happens, exactly, when an institution pays taxes?

I'm not talking taxes with you, Boards.  Too overwhelmed with your true intent showing through.

Of course not.  Don't let the actual subject of the thread get in the way of your tangent.

Well you need to read...this was the topic sentence which is exactly what she is referring to...

The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn't be subsidizing religion and non-profits

With his ultimate pronouncement that religion be destroyed by science....

With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again. That is essentially what happened there. The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion. The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct? It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.

Here's an interesting response from the other forum I participate in when I asked a very knowledgeable poster "why intelligent people persist in believing in religion when they are able to discern the evidence?'

Red Lawhern 3 Vikingwoman 2


We are only 3,000 years (60 generations) from a pre-literate aboriginal culture, and tribalism, VW. Human beings are conditioned by hundreds of thousands of years of inherited experience to fear ambiguity and the unknown. It's built into our fight-or-flee reactions, and it takes conscious effort to overcome. Erich Fromm wrote in some depth about this paradox, in "Escape From Freedom" (1941), analyzing the willful suspension of disbelief that so characterizes the followers of fascist and collectivist/totalitarian systems.

Meantime, anyone with a background in human factors can tell you that perception is very pliable -- we literally see what we EXPECT to see (or desire to see), and often miss what we do not expect or desire. Intelligence constantly contends with instinct and unreasoning fear argues against ethical consideration for other human beings, particularly those perceived as "not like us." We are herd animals, only now emerging into real self-awareness.

boards of FL wrote:With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again.  That is essentially what happened there.  The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion.  The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct?  It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.  

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.

Really? I could have sworn to the fact many states have gay marriage on the law books. Could we not be patient and let the legal process of the STATES take their course?

Nope, SCOTUS had to step in. And now, according to Boards, this is the weakening of religions influence in America.

So we see the true colors...not of the rainbow...but of Christian bigotry.

I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way. And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post....

Wow...

Actually I never seen a complicated device( like a one celled animal) make itself without outside guidance...so if you want to believe that primordial ooze had a vast intelligence then fine. I choose to believe it was just mud and some other force formed life from it. Your faith is mud worship, mine is creator worship. I can live with that....honestly boards with your dogmatic zeal between global warming and evolution , well... I would rather talk with a Jehovah Witness.