INCORRECT! I didn't realize that all the investigations into Trump were finished and that he was found innocent as a newborn baby.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
INCORRECT! I didn't realize that all the investigations into Trump were finished and that he was found innocent as a newborn baby.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Read what I wrote. My point is that there is no climate scientist in the world who denies global warming. You have utterly failed to come up with even one example.
You latest example is Patrick Moore, who is not a climate scientist. His expertise is in forestry.
And, btw, he is NOT a founder of Greenpeace.
So let's review my larger point, which you have also failed to dispute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
All Quiet on the Western Front wrote:
Nontrumpers have been very quiet since Pelosi's announcement.
Reality setting in.
The reality is that Trump is destroying the GOP. So leave him in place.
nontrumper wrote:
You just lost bigly.
Trump said "big leagues". Look it up, fool.
The Global Warming scientists is not made up of stupid people but IS made up of people who have been wrong and wrong again and wrong again. Look at the IPCC reports. Each new one indicated how wrong the previous ones were. The Global Warming scientific community have done a terrible job in being correct. I don't think any other profession has been this wrong time and time and time again.
I'm not terribly interested in the Global Warming debate (because it is like talking to Flat Earthers to those who disbelieve), but I am interested enough to ask you these questions:
1) Is your reason for dismissing this bit of science just because this issue has been politicized?
2) If suddenly the flu vaccine or lead in paint (prior to 1978) and gas was politicized (and to be clear, Democrats would be on the correct side of the science there), would you be against those too?
3) Why are you against limiting pollution?
4) Just because other countries pollute, does that mean we should also? You do realize that the more countries that recognize pollutants for what they are the more pressure there is on those who pollute the most to stop. This can materialize in eventual sanctions, ban on purchasing goods from massively polluting countries, etc. It isn't a good argument to say, "we should continue to pollute just because China does."
So, feel free to answer those questions. I suggest you do so in front of a mirror so that you can get the full effect. I likely won't engage you further in Global Warming discussions because, as I said, I am not that interested in discussing that with people who will get on an airplane and take medicine but somehow decide the scientists are wrong about this.
Oh, and in case you didn't realize...
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
1) "scientific consensus" is a real thing. Look it up. But granted, nothing in science is beyond question.
2) Here you are saying that you are smarter than the scientists who did the research to come up with the 97% number.
3) Here you are saying that you are smarter than the climate scientists and that you believe in a global scientific conspiracy (data manipulation).
4) Again, you are saying that you are smarter than the climate scientists.
5) China is currently doing more than than the US to convert to renewable energy. They are the undisputed leader in the manufacture and deployment of solar energy. China is by far the largest market for electric vehicles. They are winning the future because they will have unlimited energy that is virtually free while we still rely on expensive fossil fuels.
You pose some nice questions.
1) The politicalization of it has indeed ruffled some of my feathers. Science welcomes attacks to confirm or disprove the underlying theory that may be present at the time. Global Warming welcomes no such attacks. It is treated as Gospel. Any climate scientist who does not go along with the dogma is either ostracized or does not receive funds for whatever project he or she is interested in.
2) Will come back to this.
3)I am all in favor of limiting pollution. The US has already done a lot in that respect. Question back at you - does it bother you that Global Warming advocates like Al Gore and AOC and others preach a good game but don't really follow what they preach? And all these Hollywood types like DeCaprio et al. who preach the mantra but take private jets anyway.
4) I kind of answered this previously. The US has made great strides in reducing CO2 emissions. A wonderful job but it can do more. But if other countries like China and India are not interesting in reducing emissions, the US's effort will mostly be for naught.
1) You do not understand science if you say there can be a "consensus" in science.
2) If you do not understand why that 97% number is bogus, then I will not explain it to you. YOu need to learn it on your own.
3) There was widespread data manipulation. Are you disputing that? Was climate data not doctored to get the results that those who did the doctoring wanted?
4) I am not saying I am smarter than climate scientists. I am saying their track record is equivalent of falling south of the Mendoza line (.200) in baseball. They have a terrible track record. Why should we rely on them when they have proved themselves so awful in their predictions?
5) Go look at a chart of China's CO2 emissions over the last 2 decades. America's CO2 emissions have been declining and China's are set to quadruple in barely over two decades.
How are you this stupid? Pollution = bad for your health. Rising temperatures = more heat waves, bad for your health and drain on energy sources. Rising temps = increased risk and spreading of vector borne diseases and extreme weather = also bad for you. Are you fkng brain dead?
L L wrote:
Oh yeah.
We can trust Kellyanne to clear this all up.
I don't understand this deadline.
Trump has to either retract his accusation or provide evidence by today.
Or what?
What are the consequences if he doesn't? They ask him again?
He gets charged with something?
There will be no consequences to Trump's lies. As usual.
Yep, here you were b*tching 2 years ago today. What a waste of a life.
Actually, if you wanted to reduce your temps, the best thing would be to pump the most crapp out into the atmosphere as you are capable of. Sort of like what happened when Vesuvius erupted. The temps were drastically reduced there.
Flagpole wrote:
DRINK F*** FIGHT wrote:
With 8 more years of President Trump and then 8 years of President Pence all libbbtards will either be dead from suicide or have left America for the libbbtard Utopia of North Korea. Either way, libbbtards are DECIMATED!😂
Trump has ZERO chance to win the next Presidential election. ZERO.
Flagpole on March 7th, 2017. I'm still laughing at this.
YOU'VE JUST BEEN PROVEN A LIAR! You said he had zero chance to win on March 7th, 2017!
You said you are not willing to say YET that he can't win. Yes you did, you said he had ZERO chance to win the next election.
LIAR!
PIO!!!!! wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Trump has ZERO chance to win the next Presidential election. ZERO.
Flagpole on March 7th, 2017. I'm still laughing at this.
Flagpole - this is not something ou you can come back from. You CAN NOT weasel yourself out of this. This is not a gift you can return to the store. You guaranteed that Trump has ZERO chance for re-election. Own up, brother. You have never owned up to anything so not expecting much.
just checked. he did post that on march 7, 2017. you're reading it now flagpole and feeling like a fool. kudos to whoever found it. not willing to say YET? nope, you already did and you said ZERO chance indeed.
You are wrong about climate scientists who dispute elements of the scientific consensus. _its_baddude just posted a great example. Dr. Judith Curry is one of the most famous climate scientists who is skeptical of the IPCC conclusions. Her views have been well known for many years and yet she continued to serve on the faculty at one of the top science and engineering schools in the world. She held the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology for more than 10 years. And she continued to publish until her recent retirement.
It doesn't bother me at all that climate change advocates still ride in airplanes. You can advocate for better policies without being a Luddite. Climate change solutions do not mean withdraw from the modern world.
Grounding airplanes is not the answer.
Judicious public policy that embraces renewable energy is the answer.
That pig Manafort gets more time! Lock him up! Longer!
Plus he hasn’t faced charges of treason yet, PLUS whatever SDNY is up to. Watch your back donny boy! Your next to face charges! They’re going to re-institute the death penalty, the way the charges are piling up. See you in hell. You won’t have to worry about global warming there.
I agree with a lot of what you say. The US can implement even the policies that AOC advocates but that is going to make little difference overall because the countries who are the most egregious in CO2 emissions are not truly on board.
There was a number of climate scientists who came out maybe 10 years ago in opposition to the Global Warming mantra. There maybe were 3000 of them and most were highly credentialed. But those in the Global Warming realm basically poo--pooed their counter arguments. Again, if you are to be accepted nowadays as a Climate Scientist you have to toe the party line or you are a persona non grata. No one can deny that. No opposition is ever welcomed even though science, by its basic nature, is supposed to welcome opposition to either counter the prevailing thought or confirm that prevailing thought.
Sally Vix wrote:
youbeonedumbmofo wrote:
How are you this stupid? Pollution = bad for your health. Rising temperatures = more heat waves, bad for your health and drain on energy sources. Rising temps = increased risk and spreading of vector borne diseases and extreme weather = also bad for you. Are you fkng brain dead?
Actually, if you wanted to reduce your temps, the best thing would be to pump the most crapp out into the atmosphere as you are capable of. Sort of like what happened when Vesuvius erupted. The temps were drastically reduced there.
And Dr. Sally climate change scientist wins the dumbest post of the day award