Thoughts don't apply to climate change deniers, only knee jerk reactions spoon fed by the right wing echo chamber.
Thoughts don't apply to climate change deniers, only knee jerk reactions spoon fed by the right wing echo chamber.
The climate has been changing as long as the world has been around. Why is that news?
Thoughts are inconvenient wrote:
Thoughts don't apply to climate change deniers, only knee jerk reactions spoon fed by the right wing echo chamber.
Both sides have knee jerk reactions and echo chambers.
Kiju wrote:
Thoughts are inconvenient wrote:Thoughts don't apply to climate change deniers, only knee jerk reactions spoon fed by the right wing echo chamber.
Both sides have knee jerk reactions and echo chambers.
True.
But only one side has facts.
No Way wrote:
True.
But only one side has facts.
False. They twist and abuse the "facts"
Ohio used to be sea level wrote:
The climate has been changing as long as the world has been around. Why is that news?
For vast majority of the age of the world conditions were not viable for human's to evolve. Thank you accepting that future climate change will make conditions such that human's are no longer viable.
People Missing wrote:
For vast majority of the age of the world conditions were not viable for human's to evolve.
False
Even during the small time humans have been around it has fluctuated much more than all the 'global warming' we will cause.
Kiju wrote:
Thoughts are inconvenient wrote:Thoughts don't apply to climate change deniers, only knee jerk reactions spoon fed by the right wing echo chamber.
Both sides have knee jerk reactions and echo chambers.
No, even if you were to compare MSNBC to Fox, there is still no liberal equivalent to the constant whining and moaning on AM radio.
No Way wrote:
Kiju wrote:Both sides have knee jerk reactions and echo chambers.
True.
But only one side has facts.
Fact number one. 98% of computer models and prognosticators' predictions have been proven wrong. Climate science is the only area in"science" where you can be wrong with all your real world predictions, and still claim to be brilliant.
Smoked a doob once wrote:
No Way wrote:True.
But only one side has facts.
Fact number one. 98% of computer models and prognosticators' predictions have been proven wrong. Climate science is the only area in"science" where you can be wrong with all your real world predictions, and still claim to be brilliant.
Fact number two: You can't back up the statement you just made.
Well science is a tough subject for the GOP.
Smoked a doob once wrote:
No Way wrote:True.
But only one side has facts.
Fact number one. 98% of computer models and prognosticators' predictions have been proven wrong. Climate science is the only area in"science" where you can be wrong with all your real world predictions, and still claim to be brilliant.
Incorrect -- 43% of computer models accurately predicted climate conditions to 0.00002% of error. But just ignore that fact.
Dean Moriarty1 wrote:
From the washington post:
https://goo. gl/HijHek
thoughts?
Our British Energy Ministry, responsible for electricity supplies etc. decided to call itself: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
I wrote to them and asked them exactly what they meant by that and what was now their mission?
To change the climate?
And if so - to what sort of climate do they envisage?
(personally, I rather fancy a Mediterranean type climate in Britain, could they arrange that?)
Or to stop the climate from changing?
Good luck with that - our King Canute tried that sort of trick with our tides back in the 11th century.
As he pointed out, even a king can’t order the tide to stop coming in.
I never did get a reply.
I vote Republican and believe in Climate change.
The OP is Robert Johnson.
Many Republicans (in the USA) believe in climate change and think we should do something about it. Most elected Republicans don't.
This could be because oil/coal companies give huge amounts of money to Republican politicians but not to regular Republican people.
Off balance wrote:
Kiju wrote:Both sides have knee jerk reactions and echo chambers.
No, even if you were to compare MSNBC to Fox, there is still no liberal equivalent to the constant whining and moaning on AM radio.
We didn't say constant whining and moaning. We said knee jerk reactions and echo chambers. How can your reading be that poor?
TheGreatPlantini wrote:
Many Republicans (in the USA) believe in climate change and think we should do something about it. Most elected Republicans don't.
This could be because oil/coal companies give huge amounts of money to Republican politicians but not to regular Republican people.
Or it could be because some of the liberals' biggest talking points about climate change are lies
TheGreatPlantini wrote:
Many Republicans (in the USA) believe in climate change and think we should do something about it. Most elected Republicans don't.
This could be because oil/coal companies give huge amounts of money to Republican politicians but not to regular Republican people.
I believe this to be true but the percentage of Republicans who do not believe in the science of climate change must be higher enough to allow politicians to present that view.
Binks wrote:
Our British Energy Ministry, responsible for electricity supplies etc. decided to call itself: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
I wrote to them and asked them exactly what they meant by that and what was now their mission?
To change the climate?
And if so - to what sort of climate do they envisage?
(personally, I rather fancy a Mediterranean type climate in Britain, could they arrange that?)
Or to stop the climate from changing?
Good luck with that - our King Canute tried that sort of trick with our tides back in the 11th century.
As he pointed out, even a king can’t order the tide to stop coming in.
I never did get a reply.
Wow, you must be really clever!