Im on 'read only mode' on the Trump thread. Unless I'm asked a specific question, I just read and like when necessary. No commenting. And this smile's for you :)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter allblackcitizen
- Start date
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,883
Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist are just brilliant at obfuscation.
Duh! Sure it may be 'virtually certain' humans are speeding up the warming of the Earth's climate. But the critical question is by how much?
If it's 65% then that a serious problem. But if it 0.00065% then it's seriously stupid to have listen to climate alarmist whine and disrupt Life as w know it. Is it not?
The question is never about the absolute (something leftist seldom get) but rather it's about the nuance.
Let's take your 99% of Scientist agree claim for example ( side note it's 97% and not 99, but that's a minor point).
How was this number arrived at? I'll give you a hint "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic global warming in the Science literature by Cook et al 2013.
Read it. Read the support and criticism of it. Understand how the consensus was 'formed.' And what it can at best be said to be saying. Better yet, aren't you an accountant? Analyze the numbers yourself.
Also familiarize yourself with all the other Consensus beliefs in the Climate Science field. You know, the ones that don't get the same TV play that the "97% of climate Scientist agree" does.
Yeah I’ll not need you to tell me what I’ll familiarise myself with cheers. A large part of my degree involved climate science and I’m replying to nutjob that doesn’t think the EPA being decimated is a bad thing.
I’d be more inclined to spend the day having root canal treatment than debating climate science with someone such as yourself.
My point, that you obviously missed. Is that the climate debate should be on objective, not political grounds of right and left. Cheers.
Last edited:
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,230
Im on 'read only mode' on the Trump thread. Unless I'm asked a specific question, I just read and like when necessary. No commenting. And this smile's for you :)
Ah you’ve retreated to a ‘safe space’. Understandable.
Lawd! I didn't miss your point. Rather I was pointing out that 'your point' itself was a political stand masquerading as an objective claim. Nothing about it was objective.Yeah I’ll not need you to tell me what I’ll familiarise myself with cheers. A large part of my degree involved climate science and I’m replying to nutjob that doesn’t think the EPA being decimated is a bad thing.
I’d be more inclined to spend the day having root canal treatment than debating climate science with someone such as yourself.
My point, that you obviously missed. Is that the climate debate should be on objective, not political grounds of right and left. Cheers.
Trump thread is a safe space for psuedo Liberals suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.Ah you’ve retreated to a ‘safe space’. Understandable.
Sometimes, you have to let them have their asylum. But if it goes too far, I'll start taking names again.
I'm watching :p
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,883
Other than the words.Nothing about it was objective.
But as I’ve said, I’d rather be doing anything than going back and forth with someone such as yourself on a topic such as this.
Sure dude. Let's all be objectively oblivious to the facts.Other than the words.
But as I’ve said, I’d rather be doing anything than going back and forth with someone such as yourself on a topic such as this.
Got it!
Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist are just brilliant at obfuscation.
Duh! Sure it may be 'virtually certain' humans are speeding up the warming of the Earth's climate. But the critical question is by how much?
If it's 65% then that a serious problem. But if it 0.00065% then it's seriously stupid to have listen to climate alarmist whine and disrupt Life as w know it. Is it not?
The question is never about the absolute (something leftist seldom get) but rather it's about the nuance.
Let's take your 99% of Scientist agree claim for example ( side note it's 97% and not 99, but that's a minor point).
How was this number arrived at? I'll give you a hint "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic global warming in the Science literature by Cook et al 2013.
Read it. Read the support and criticism of it. Understand how the consensus was 'formed.' And what it can at best be said to be saying. Better yet, aren't you an accountant? Analyze the numbers yourself.
Also familiarize yourself with all the other Consensus beliefs in the Climate Science field. You know, the ones that don't get the same TV play that the "97% of climate Scientist agree" does.
It's actually incredibly simple physics.
1. Do humans put carbon dioxide into the air?
Yes. That's undeniable.
2. How does the planet maintain temperature?
Through a balance. Heat from the Sun is absorbed and much bounces off into space. This is undeniable.
3. Does carbon dioxide alter that balance?
Yes. Carbon dioxide absorbs the energy that was bouncing back into space and reemits it back towards the ground which heats the plane. This is undeniable.
I don't see how there's an argument here. None of the above is above primary school level science.
It’s weird how so many are divided on this subject on political lines.
One doesn’t have to be left wing to understand that’s it’s virtually certain that humans are speeding the warming of earth’s climate. You only have to be able to read and understand the 99.9% of climate scientists that have the data to make that claim.
It's what the GOP does in America and it's seeping into this country. Politicise a topic that 99% of the population should care about and it suddenly becomes a 50/50 debate.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,449
Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist are just brilliant at obfuscation.
Duh! Sure it may be 'virtually certain' humans are speeding up the warming of the Earth's climate. But the critical question is by how much?
If it's 65% then that a serious problem. But if it 0.00065% then it's seriously stupid to have listen to climate alarmist whine and disrupt Life as w know it. Is it not?
The question is never about the absolute (something leftist seldom get) but rather it's about the nuance.
Let's take your 99% of Scientist agree claim for example ( side note it's 97% and not 99, but that's a minor point).
How was this number arrived at? I'll give you a hint "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic global warming in the Science literature by Cook et al 2013.
Read it. Read the support and criticism of it. Understand how the consensus was 'formed.' And what it can at best be said to be saying. Better yet, aren't you an accountant? Analyze the numbers yourself.
Also familiarize yourself with all the other Consensus beliefs in the Climate Science field. You know, the ones that don't get the same TV play that the "97% of climate Scientist agree" does.
Like any sane human being would take a yanks opinion on climate change seriously.
Many in your country is in serious denial about how we have influenced the planets natural cycle.
Or is the palnet being a bit fucked just fake news?
Left wing, right wing, it doesn't matter, things need to change in our ways and actions as a species
Rascal
El Presidente
Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist are just brilliant at obfuscation.
The question is never about the absolute (something leftist seldom get) but rather it's about the nuance.
.
You appear a little misguided about the left.
Do not worry, I am here to help guide you.