Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We're waiting for California to secede. Then maybe Washington and Oregon will follow. Then we can conquer them fair and square. They are full of hipsters. With their tight pants they can't duck. Should be a breeze. Then Cuba, then Mexico. Then the ultimate prize...Tahiti!
The west coast has quite a few military bases fraz. Rather be a hipster than a hee haw though.
Once you secede they won't be there.
You will be all alone...in the night.
If they pull it off first after Texas have threatened it for, what generations now, then they might be a sterner breed then the tough barking as long as there is a chain link fence between us Texan. Just saying, if they do it first, I hope you like taking pictures of your food, skinny jeans and scarves regardless of temperature. Heck, haven't they already taken an entire city in Texas already?
That just proves our manly superior. Austin has over a million zekes, er Californians in it. Yet 10,000 hold the entire northern wall against them.
Cedar Park, saving Texas from California invasion, since 1835.
"We're from Cedar Park. We're from Cedar Park. Our parents make us come in, before it gets dark." CPHS band motto.
"We're Cedar Park. You lose." Cedar Park Percussion-multiyear state champs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 20:47:20
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....
Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.
I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".
We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities couldcause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
Whem, we've been through this before, and I don't want to do it again, because refuting your quick BS takes more effort than it is worth. There IS a consensus that climate change is real, the exact number change from study to study, but it is consistently very high (80s-90s). Also, you've got to love an article who's premise is "Look at all these papers against it, there must be no consensus!" while also not stating the number of papers in support of man-made climate change, nor what level of accreditation (I think that's the word I'm looking for) was required to be included in the count.
Man made climate change is very much real, although specifics are not 100% clear (because this is science), it is generaly accepted that it is pretty substantial.
Also, the "no warming" thing is cherry-picked BS. It's picking an extremely high point, namely the strongest El Nino in a century, to start, allowing it to appear to be no change. It's a classic case of data manipulation, and you insult us and yourself by using that argument.
And you very much have tried to disprove man-made climate change. We had a massive ~12 page argument about this a few years ago, where you used a group who's sole purpose it was to try and disprove man-made climate change (and was actually funded by the fething oil industry, which was hilarious because I tend to think of gak like that in the relm of conspiracy theories). Don't blow bs.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....
Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.
I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".
We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities couldcause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
Whem, we've been through this before, and I don't want to do it again, because refuting your quick BS takes more effort than it is worth. There IS a consensus that climate change is real, the exact number change from study to study, but it is consistently very high (80s-90s). Also, you've got to love an article who's premise is "Look at all these papers against it, there must be no consensus!" while also not stating the number of papers in support of man-made climate change, nor what level of accreditation (I think that's the word I'm looking for) was required to be included in the count.
Man made climate change is very much real, although specifics are not 100% clear (because this is science), it is generaly accepted that it is pretty substantial.
Also, the "no warming" thing is cherry-picked BS. It's picking an extremely high point, namely the strongest El Nino in a century, to start, allowing it to appear to be no change. It's a classic case of data manipulation, and you insult us and yourself by using that argument.
And you very much have tried to disprove man-made climate change. We had a massive ~12 page argument about this a few years ago, where you used a group who's sole purpose it was to try and disprove man-made climate change (and was actually funded by the fething oil industry, which was hilarious because I tend to think of gak like that in the relm of conspiracy theories). Don't blow bs.
Again.
Anyone who says there is no climate change is a fool so that point is irrelevant.
1. How much change?
2. What is the impact good and bad?
3. What is the cost and effort to adjust to #1?
Giving the govrnment carte blanche to regulate everything down to cow farts and barbeque grills only flies in Kalifornia.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....
Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.
I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".
We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities couldcause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
Whem, we've been through this before, and I don't want to do it again, because refuting your quick BS takes more effort than it is worth. There IS a consensus that climate change is real, the exact number change from study to study, but it is consistently very high (80s-90s). Also, you've got to love an article who's premise is "Look at all these papers against it, there must be no consensus!" while also not stating the number of papers in support of man-made climate change, nor what level of accreditation (I think that's the word I'm looking for) was required to be included in the count.
Man made climate change is very much real, although specifics are not 100% clear (because this is science), it is generaly accepted that it is pretty substantial.
Also, the "no warming" thing is cherry-picked BS. It's picking an extremely high point, namely the strongest El Nino in a century, to start, allowing it to appear to be no change. It's a classic case of data manipulation, and you insult us and yourself by using that argument.
And you very much have tried to disprove man-made climate change. We had a massive ~12 page argument about this a few years ago, where you used a group who's sole purpose it was to try and disprove man-made climate change (and was actually funded by the fething oil industry, which was hilarious because I tend to think of gak like that in the relm of conspiracy theories). Don't blow bs.
Again.
Anyone who says there is no climate change is a fool so that point is irrelevant.
1. How much change?
2. What is the impact good and bad?
3. What is the cost and effort to adjust to #1?
Giving the govrnment carte blanche to regulate everything down to cow farts and barbeque grills only flies in Kalifornia.
And that has been explained extrensivly over the years, people just refuse to listen.
And I don't think anybody is arguing for that sort of. I'm certainly not. In fact most of our climate change prevention stuff is support for alternative energy, fuel efficiency, ect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whembly in the time that those 770 papers were published, how many papers supporting the consensus were published?
If anyone is actually interested in learning about Climate Change from a reliable source then head over to NASA's climate change pages.
whembly wrote: How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....
Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.
I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".
We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities couldcause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
Whem, we've been through this before, and I don't want to do it again, because refuting your quick BS takes more effort than it is worth. There IS a consensus that climate change is real, the exact number change from study to study, but it is consistently very high (80s-90s). Also, you've got to love an article who's premise is "Look at all these papers against it, there must be no consensus!" while also not stating the number of papers in support of man-made climate change, nor what level of accreditation (I think that's the word I'm looking for) was required to be included in the count.
The point in bringing all those papers is to refute what politicians justify in implementing rules/regulations by restating the 97% consensus bs.
Man made climate change is very much real,
Never argued otherwised.
although specifics are not 100% clear (because this is science), it is generaly accepted that it is pretty substantial.
Debatable.
Also, the "no warming" thing is cherry-picked BS. It's picking an extremely high point, namely the strongest El Nino in a century, to start, allowing it to appear to be no change. It's a classic case of data manipulation, and you insult us and yourself by using that argument.
18+ fething years. That's what they call the "pause" in a timeframe, that the original "hockey-stick graph" the IPCC published that we'd be seeing massive temp increase.
It's not cherry picking, it's the aggregate of raw satellite data plotted over time. That same site PROVIDES the fething links to the raw data for you to replicate the graph.
And you very much have tried to disprove man-made climate change. We had a massive ~12 page argument about this a few years ago, where you used a group who's sole purpose it was to try and disprove man-made climate change (and was actually funded by the fething oil industry, which was hilarious because I tend to think of gak like that in the relm of conspiracy theories). Don't blow bs.
Calm down dude. I have never said man-made change didn't exist. What's not understood is BY HOW MUCH.
Jesus, it's like the whenever the left/liberals picks a political position, it MUST strictly enforce its doctrines and punishes the apostates.
Very preachy. Very fundamentalist....
So get off yer high horse boyo and have a debate.... if you want to dispute something, get down to brass tact rather that pushing same old talking points.
And here I thought people were talking about climate change.
Here's a good article summarize the issues in touting the "97 percent".
You know I always love articles that start with "there is a consensus and scholars agree it is the consensus but I don't like it and how dare they ignore me and people who agree with me!"
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
You know what. I did.
The author of that page is a blatant snake oil salesman. Maybe you should have actually read this because Jesus Christ whoever put this together spent a lot of time compiling research that "may support a skeptical view" that doesn't support one at all (and indeed just snaking through the 2016 bits is like reading a list of "how the feth did you conclude that any of these belonged on your list?). Never mind that once you've gone to a blog called "No tricks Zone" you're basically dealing with the discount poor man's No Spin Zone, but the person who made it is either incapable of reading or simply doesn't care that many of these studies would have no impact on the causes of climate change. He's trying to pass of procedural analysis as skepticism, and it's just straight up dishonest.
Seriously just read this;
Southern Hemisphere westerly airflow has a significant influence on the ocean–atmosphere system [“precipitation, sea ice extent, sea surface temperatures and the carbon cycle”] of the mid- to high latitudes with potentially global climate implications. … Spectral analysis of the charcoal record identifies a pervasive ca. 250-year periodicity that is coherent with radiocarbon production rates, suggesting that solar variability has a modulating influence on Southern Hemisphere westerly airflow. Our results have important implications for understanding global climate change through the late Holocene.
What? Then you go to the the actual study and get this in the first page;
This trend is projected to con-tinue during the 21st century as a result of both ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and a persistence of the Antarc-tic ozone hole
I even went all the way through to the conclusion, and found no such skepticism. In fact that there is man-made global warming seems to be taken for granted by the paper, it just doesn't do this mythical thing only skeptics seems to do which is presume that man-made action is an either-or function. So what I learned is that this guy did nothing but copy paste abstracts that didn't overtly deal with man made contributions to climate change and is trying to pass them off as supporting skepticism. They aren't the same thing, and anyone trying to pass them off as such should be ashamed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/13 21:47:15
Climate change does have the appearance of a religion to many. You must be penitent!
Thats why you've lost the House, Senate, Presidency, and SCOTUS. Democrats were worried about California cow farts, meanwhile:
"Now Main Street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back to your hometown Your hometown Your hometown Your hometown"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 21:48:59
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As Hats says. Whembly, if there is no scientific consensus then please provide us a list of prominent scientific organisations and societies which do not regard human CO2 emissions as being a leading cause of global climate changes.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: As Hats says. Whembly, if there is no scientific consensus then please provide us a list of prominent scientific organisations and societies which do not regard human CO2 emissions as being a leading cause of global climate changes.
I have a solution. Quickly, everyone, jump off this cliff! We can cut Co2 emissions down to nothing.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I gotta say I love the new American Conservatism that runs on little more than a desire to be vindictive while building a falsified (and lets be honest embarassing) sense that jobs that can't be saved can, and to hell with anyone who is isn't preeminently concerned with the fate of a local textile mill hundreds of miles away, and is instead worried about a the world becoming a Mad Max convention.
I mean sure the later is kind of silly, but hey at least it's a global problem and not just a middle finger that "I didn't get mine."
A Town Called Malus wrote: As Hats says. Whembly, if there is no scientific consensus then please provide us a list of prominent scientific organisations and societies which do not regard human CO2 emissions as being a leading cause of global climate changes.
I have a solution. Quickly, everyone, jump off this cliff! We can cut Co2 emissions down to nothing.
Alternately everyone put some trees on your roof! Lets get this carbon offset train going. And tell someone in a white lab coat to get to work on that orbital elevator, cause I want my electricity to come from space in the future! That way we can get some damn Gundams
They may be death machines, but at least they're GREEN!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 21:56:12
A Town Called Malus wrote: As Hats says. Whembly, if there is no scientific consensus then please provide us a list of prominent scientific organisations and societies which do not regard human CO2 emissions as being a leading cause of global climate changes.
NIPCC, which is a project of 3 different non-profits.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is funded by the fossil fuel industry, Heartland Institute previously denied the harmful effects of second hand smoke and so has zero credibility and Science & Environmental Policy Project is headed by Fred Singer, also a denier of the dangers of second hand smoke.
Hardly up there with the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, is it?
As for me googling it, you're the one claiming there isn't a consensus so the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim. I can find hundreds of scientific societies and organisations which believe climate change is driven by human CO2 emissions, which includes all of the organisations who are actually on the front line of this research, gathering and analysing the data, such as NASA. All you can give me is an organisation which is made up of people who denied the dangers of smoking in the 1990's and a US Senate report which reads like it was written by someone who had never written or even seen a scientific report in their lives.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/12/13 22:34:40
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
1000 out of how many? I mean lets ignore that there's no such thing as a "Climate Change Scientist." There's Climatology, which constitutes scientists who might study climate change. I mean I'm just gonna hazard a guess that it's probably a lot more of them total than there are people who specifically study climate change, let alone topics related to man-made climate change. A lot of the "prominent" skeptics aren't even climatologists, or even scientists. They're just people who say no. That and I'll point out discomfort with what seems to be a blatant and ongoing attempt to presuppose opposition to the IPCC constitutes skepticism of man-made climate change. I think there's a lot of good reasons to dislike the IPCC without disagreeing with it on fundamentals, but a lot of people seem invested in pretending its one or the other. It's not like the IPCC is the only organization out there that looks at the topic. AAAS. USNRC. They all say the same basic thing the IPCC does, they're just not dicks about how they do it.
Oh and yeah. I'm gonna believe a book published by an organization funded by the guys who put this out there. Just when you think that at the very least people could agree that thinking climate change is not a Chinese conspiracy is absolute lunacy. Much science. Much doge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 22:29:28
Again.
Anyone who says there is no climate change is a fool so that point is irrelevant.
1. How much change?
2. What is the impact good and bad?
3. What is the cost and effort to adjust to #1?
Giving the govrnment carte blanche to regulate everything down to cow farts and barbeque grills only flies in Kalifornia.
Oh and yeah. I'm gonna believe a book published by an organization funded by the guys who put this out there. Just when you think that at the very least people could agree that thinking climate change is not a Chinese conspiracy is absolute lunacy. Much science. Much doge.
The article also references the NIPCC, of which the Heartland Institute is one of only three members, without making it clear that it was affiliated with the NIPCC, passing it off as an independent source.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)
Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.
That's the derpy, derp of all that is... conflating climate-change to anthropogenic activities.
Since you are the most reasonable climate change denier that I know, could you share with me the piece of info that convinced you that 90ish% of relevant scientists are wrong and that climate change is NOT connected man made activities?
How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....
Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.
I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".
We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities couldcause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
Hey, I appreciate you taking the time, but what I was really looking for was your "a-ha" moment. The point where you went, "you know what, the generally accepted scientific consensus is wrong."
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Whem, we've been through this before, and I don't want to do it again, because refuting your quick BS takes more effort than it is worth. There IS a consensus that climate change is real, the exact number change from study to study, but it is consistently very high (80s-90s). Also, you've got to love an article who's premise is "Look at all these papers against it, there must be no consensus!" while also not stating the number of papers in support of man-made climate change, nor what level of accreditation (I think that's the word I'm looking for) was required to be included in the count.
The point in bringing all those papers is to refute what politicians justify in implementing rules/regulations by restating the 97% consensus bs.
Again, there is a consensus, that has been proven time and again. The exact number isn't the point here.
although specifics are not 100% clear (because this is science), it is generaly accepted that it is pretty substantial.
Debatable.
Not very well. Again, the reason the entire world is doing something is because of this consensus (you think fething China would go along with stuff like this if it wasn't sure abouti t?).
18+ fething years. That's what they call the "pause" in a timeframe, that the original "hockey-stick graph" the IPCC published that we'd be seeing massive temp increase.
The IPCC charts are predictive, they aren't supposed to be some sort of crystal ball. Data is constantly being refined.
It's not cherry picking, it's the aggregate of raw satellite data plotted over time. That same site PROVIDES the fething links to the raw data for you to replicate the graph.
Did you even read what I just said?. It's data manipulation. They choose to start the graph on an abnormality (strongest El Nino in a centtury), to give the impression that there has not been net warming. If you look at the full graph, from when satellite data was fist available, it;s something quite different.
See that massive spike at '97-8? That's what I'm talking about. It's an abnormality that allows them to manipulate the data.
Here's another graph.
Spoiler:
And the same data with a trend line.
Spoiler:
Notice how there are repeated "pauses". It's because those "pauses" aren't really pauses, just the general randomness of different years. That argument is fundamentally dishonest, and you should stop using it.
Calm down dude. I have never said man-made change didn't exist. What's not understood is BY HOW MUCH.
I am calm (seriously, that was pretty benign what I just said, don't know why you would think I would be angry). I'm just saying you are wrong, and the facts say as much.
Also I do remember you arguing against it's existence (although I may have gotten you mixed up with other poster, I'll go see if I can find the old thread.
Jesus, it's like the whenever the left/liberals picks a political position, it MUST strictly enforce its doctrines and punishes the apostates.
Ah the old "CLIMATE CHANGE IS A RELIGIONS!!!1!" argument.
Very preachy. Very fundamentalist....
What part of my thing came off as preachy? Seriously.
So get off yer high horse boyo and have a debate.... if you want to dispute something, get down to brass tact rather that pushing same old talking points.
High horse? I'm just saying that it exists and is a problem. And what "same old talking points" have I been using. I've literally just been responding to your talking points.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Wow. No pride in computer programming? I mean sure it's a market with no where near the future people were hoping for in the 90s, especially when Americans are scoring so low in math, but no pride? Now people are just being pricks.
Rev Franklin Graham wrote:“They don’t want to be a computer programmer!” Graham continued. “They want to do the same job as their fathers and their grandfathers. There was pride in the manufacturing and the building. And we’ve taken all that away and it’s sad.”
This man has no contact with reality. If manufacturing comes back to his town, the only jobs available to human Americans will be programming the robots.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)
Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.
That's the derpy, derp of all that is... conflating climate-change to anthropogenic activities.
Since you are the most reasonable climate change denier that I know, could you share with me the piece of info that convinced you that 90ish% of relevant scientists are wrong and that climate change is NOT connected man made activities?
How long have you been on this board? I've posted loads....
Stop using 'climate change denier'... it's used as a pejorative, which won't do you any favor in eliciting a good conversation.
I have never ever attempted to "disprove man-made climate change".
We exist - therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every god damn critter on this planet. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for it *is* accepted that some man-made activities couldcause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much.
So... dig in... with a favorite frosty beverage in hand... stay awhile and do some reading.
Hey, I appreciate you taking the time, but what I was really looking for was your "a-ha" moment. The point where you went, "you know what, the generally accepted scientific consensus is wrong."
The "a-ha" moment was when the Cook's 97% consensus was debunked... even though the AGW crowd/politicians keeps pushing that for their justifications on new policy changes.
I'm okay with trying green tech and tailoring regulations to make things safer within reasons.
But, if the reason to introduce polices is to kill Oil/Gas/coal industries in favor of more expensive green-tech... then... we will have problems. That's just dumbassery.
Besides... I'm the ultimate greenie... where's the feth are my nuke plants??
Probably one of the most unarguable statements he made in the whole thing: "you can change climate policy, but you can't control climate-change. It's happening." (paraphrased)
Its also the most derp derp statement I've heard in the last five minutes. Of course climate change is happening. It always has. it always will.
Has Trumpo managed to stay off Twitter for a whole 5 minutes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whembly in the time that those 770 papers were published, how many papers supporting the consensus were published?
If anyone is actually interested in learning about Climate Change from a reliable source then head over to NASA's climate change pages.
whembly wrote: But, if the reason to introduce polices is to kill Oil/Gas/coal industries in favor of more expensive green-tech... then... we will have problems. That's just dumbassery.
True, but, by their very nature, oil, gas, and coal are finite, and it is best to find alternative energy sources sooner rather than later, allowing the remaining oil, gas, and coal to be used for other purposes. Sure, we're not going to run out in our lifetimes, but it's not going to get cheaper. We'll always need them for various industrial purposes (until replicators are invented), and I'd rather not give GW another excuse to raise their prices.
Besides... I'm the ultimate greenie... where's the feth are my nuke plants??
But are you willing to have one of them installed within ten miles of your house? That tends to be the sticking point for a lot of people.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
