Forum
ยป
I'm watching Leonardo DiCaprio documentary on climate change.
I'm watching Leonardo DiCaprio documentary on climate change.
11-04-2016, 12:01 PM
-
#121
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
-
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: in a Coalmine, Ireland
- Age: 40
- Posts: 6,185
- Rep Power: 2428
-
-
Originally Posted By deltpecx⏩
This was a minority scientific viewpoint in the 70s ( (when the structure of chaotic systems were only beginning to be understood in maths and science, and we couldn't figure out how bees flew - and now we can, because scienceprogresses) - scientific research suggesting global cooling was in the minority, that three times the amount of studies were neutral, and over seven times the amount of studies suggested we faced global warming.http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9...aaron-bandler#
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...mate-of-fraud/
I'll say it again.
In the 1970s these climate experts predicted we would be heading into global cooling.
Other 'experts' told us we would run out of oil by the mid 1990's.
How are you cars running?
It's good to be old sometimes as we remember the past.
Follow the money. $$$
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...mate-of-fraud/
I'll say it again.
In the 1970s these climate experts predicted we would be heading into global cooling.
Other 'experts' told us we would run out of oil by the mid 1990's.
How are you cars running?
It's good to be old sometimes as we remember the past.
Follow the money. $$$
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article...-in-the-1970s/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/
As wiki (not perfect, but beats getting all your science info from media hype) sums up accurately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Don't get science news from newspapers, or at least base your scientific opinions on general impressions from them. It's worse than useless, and puts ones positions into that same boat.
No we don't know everything about complex systems, but cherry picking a minority element and pointing out how they all got their predictions wrong doesn't do much to enlighten us on what the state of general mapping is like.
And comparing the weakness of a minority (but highly hyped) scientific viewpoint from a much more scientifically primitive time, to what was the general consensus then becoming virtually complete consensus in the field today, to show that there's no reason to buy into current consensus, is a serious false equivalance and a preposterously cherry picked and silly argument.
11-04-2016, 12:02 PM
-
#122
Originally Posted By momo5⏩
The earth was warmer in 900 than it is today.you'd have to be an idiot to believe climate change isn't real at this point the entire world has signed a agreement to stop polluting as much, ice caps are melting and drastic weather changes. Your just simply a retard if you don't believe it. You think russia and china would agree to this sht if it wasn't real? The entire world is going to agree to cut back on production to not pollute as much because it's an "agenda" your fcking stupid boyo.
None of you miscers are even affected by the agreement for less pollution but you act like it effects you like it's a agenda to destroy your life. your fcking retarded.
None of you miscers are even affected by the agreement for less pollution but you act like it effects you like it's a agenda to destroy your life. your fcking retarded.
How do you explain that as there wasn't use of oil then and less people?
The earth naturally goes through cooling and warming cycles.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 12:07 PM
-
#123
Originally Posted By Penile_Dementia⏩
Do you know that the earth started to warm about 170 years ago from The Little Ice Age?This was a minority scientific viewpoint in the 70s ( (when the structure of chaotic systems were only beginning to be understood in maths and science, and we couldn't figure out how bees flew - and now we can, because scienceprogresses) - scientific research suggesting global cooling was in the minority, that three times the amount of studies were neutral, and over seven times the amount of studies suggested we faced global warming.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article...-in-the-1970s/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/
As wiki (not perfect, but beats getting all your science info from media hype) sums up accurately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Don't get science news from newspapers, or at least base your scientific opinions on general impressions from them. It's worse than useless, and puts ones positions into that same boat.
No we don't know everything about complex systems, but cherry picking a minority element and pointing out how they all got their predictions wrong doesn't do much to enlighten us on what the state of general mapping is like.
And comparing the weakness of a minority (but highly hyped) scientific viewpoint from a much more scientifically primitive time, to what was the general consensus then becoming virtually complete consensus in the field today, to show that there's no reason to buy into current consensus, is a serious false equivalance and a preposterously cherry picked and silly argument.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article...-in-the-1970s/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/
As wiki (not perfect, but beats getting all your science info from media hype) sums up accurately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Don't get science news from newspapers, or at least base your scientific opinions on general impressions from them. It's worse than useless, and puts ones positions into that same boat.
No we don't know everything about complex systems, but cherry picking a minority element and pointing out how they all got their predictions wrong doesn't do much to enlighten us on what the state of general mapping is like.
And comparing the weakness of a minority (but highly hyped) scientific viewpoint from a much more scientifically primitive time, to what was the general consensus then becoming virtually complete consensus in the field today, to show that there's no reason to buy into current consensus, is a serious false equivalance and a preposterously cherry picked and silly argument.
The Little Ice Age began around the mid 1300s and ran until the 1850s.
So it would be natural for the earth to be still warming.
Explain how the earth was warmer in the 900s, than it is now, when the vikings farmed in Greenland?
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 12:11 PM
-
#124
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
-
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: in a Coalmine, Ireland
- Age: 40
- Posts: 6,185
- Rep Power: 2428
-
-
Originally Posted By deltpecx⏩
No. You made some claims, and I responded to them. I'm not playing any games of "what about..." - I'm having a discussion on the part I know pretty well. Do you have any response to what I wrote? I'll be happy to move the conversation on after that, but not before. If we can't get past "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, then everything else becomes just a gish gallop.Explain how the earth was warmer in the 900s, than it is now, when the vikings farmed in Greenland?
11-04-2016, 12:16 PM
-
#125
Originally Posted By Penile_Dementia⏩
But you ignored history!No. You made some claims, and I responded to them. I'm not playing any games of "what about..." - I'm having a discussion on the part I know pretty well. Do you have any response to what I wrote? I'll be happy to move the conversation on after that, but not before.
Fact; the vikings farmed in Greenland
Fact: the Little Ice Age ended around 1850
My point is if the earth was warmer 1100 years ago WITHOUT large human caused CO2 emissions than why would today's "warming" be bad?
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 12:18 PM
-
#126
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
-
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: in a Coalmine, Ireland
- Age: 40
- Posts: 6,185
- Rep Power: 2428
-
-
Originally Posted By deltpecx⏩
Nope. You are simply completely ignoring every single thing I wrote in response to you, and you are refusing to respond to any of it.But you ignored history!
You ignored the part where you made some claims, and I responded to them. I'm not playing any games of "what about..." - I'm having a discussion on the part I know pretty well. I'll be happy to move the conversation on after that, but not before. If we can't get past "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, then everything else becomes just a gish gallop.
Do you have any response to what I wrote?
11-04-2016, 12:22 PM
-
#127
Originally Posted By Penile_Dementia⏩
No, because I do not believe than man is changing the climate.Nope.
You ignored the part where you made some claims, and I responded to them. I'm not playing any games of "what about..." - I'm having a discussion on the part I know pretty well. I'll be happy to move the conversation on after that, but not before. If we can't get past "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, then everything else becomes just a gish gallop.
Do you have any response to what I wrote?
You ignored the part where you made some claims, and I responded to them. I'm not playing any games of "what about..." - I'm having a discussion on the part I know pretty well. I'll be happy to move the conversation on after that, but not before. If we can't get past "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, then everything else becomes just a gish gallop.
Do you have any response to what I wrote?
I believe in climate change in that it occurs naturally and is cyclical.
As I said history doesn't back up the earth is warming to fast because of man's activity theory.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 12:29 PM
-
#128
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
-
- Penile_Dementia
- Atheist Alliance
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: in a Coalmine, Ireland
- Age: 40
- Posts: 6,185
- Rep Power: 2428
-
-
Originally Posted By deltpecx⏩
If this is the reason you are giving for having no response to what I wrote, it becomes suspect that you don't know what I wrote. But I'll take it.No, because I do not believe than man is changing the climate.
Delpecx admits that he has no response to what I wrote in refutation to him about "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, because he simply doesn't believe man is changing the climate. Good, we're done.
11-04-2016, 12:29 PM
-
#129
- Kalmah6661
- Banned
-
- Kalmah6661
- Banned
- Join Date: Sep 2010
- Age: 38
- Posts: 8,245
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Aw, that's cute. People think they know more than climate scientists and say man-made climate change isn't real.
Yeah, I'd believe the propaganda coming from the oil companies over climate scientists any day.
Misc retards who deny man-made climate change need to read some books.
Yeah, I'd believe the propaganda coming from the oil companies over climate scientists any day.
Misc retards who deny man-made climate change need to read some books.
11-04-2016, 01:05 PM
-
#130
- nzgs
- who is john galt?
-
- nzgs
- who is john galt?
- Join Date: Nov 2008
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 14,238
- Rep Power: 17400
-
-
Originally Posted By Reliance012⏩
Ok I'm gonna bite, again.No, our position is rooted in empirical evidence. We have thousands (yes, literally thousands) of peer reviewed academic literature supporting our position. We have an absolute consensus among the experts. I know you think you're being skeptical, open minded and even intellectual by questioning the anthropogenic degree of relevance. You're not. The only thing you're doing is emphasizing how much of a colossal disaster the public education system is.
Science is not a popularity contest. If there was a absolute consensus on climate change - which there isn't, the 97% statistic is a famous myth (http://www.populartechnology.net/201...consensus.html) - it would count for nothing. A scientific theory is as strong as the evidence on which it is based, not the number of scientists who believe in it. If science was based on consensus then we would still be living in mud huts.
Usually when someone invokes an scientific appeal to popularity it's a cue to disregard their opinion but let's address your other points too. You believe that the cause of global warming is humans, based on the narrative that increased greenhouse gases emissions are driving temperatures. If this were true then we should see temperature changes lagging after changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. We should be able to accurately model temperature changes based on greenhouse gas levels. Unfortuntely the models have not worked, to the extent that the climate scientists have had to falsify past data to make it fit, most notably data from Paraguay and Iceland which were fixed to show warming trends when they showed cooling trends.
Then there's the fact that the global data isn't actually based on any real measurements, because vast regions of the planets do not have any logging instruments. What happens is that (falsified) data from some parts of the world like america, europe and asia are extrapolated based on computer models to the rest of the globe. So we don't actually know what is happening globally, when you see fancy graphs of heatmaps placed on top of a world map you're seeing a computer model, not actual data.
On top of the rampant data falsification (can you imagine the fallout if it emerged that the Higgs Boson data was falsified to support the standard model? ), there is also the small matter that temperatures have not risen in recent years in response to rising greenhouse gases. As a result of this, climate scientists have hitched their entire ideology to the notion that global warming is still occuring but only deep in the ocean, where conveniently we can't measure it.
So instead of a bulletproof scientific consensus (numerous science nobel prize winners openly question climate science), all you have are some computer models that don't agree with historic data, don't explain present data, make future predictions that invariably turn out to be incorrect.
And conveniently the solutions for climate change always involve grand central government projects, large scientific grants and large tax rises on everything from food to cars to energy.It's almost as if bureaucrats and climate scientists have realised that climate change is a great vehicle for them to secure their careers.
11-04-2016, 01:06 PM
-
#131
- Eagleborn777
- Banned
-
- Eagleborn777
- Banned
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Age: 30
- Posts: 468
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Hes making money off your ignorance to help the government gain popular support for a carbon tax to **** you over.
11-04-2016, 01:10 PM
-
#132
even if i did believe in it, which i don't, what does it matter?
you can't stand to commercial interests. dead in 60 years. going to enjoy life today.
p.s the "solution" is more taxes.... lol!
you can't stand to commercial interests. dead in 60 years. going to enjoy life today.
p.s the "solution" is more taxes.... lol!
Founder and Connoisseur of New Alternative Michael Jordan Laughing Gif:
https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPxFeuN8UA7nqGQ/giphy.gif
11-04-2016, 01:11 PM
-
#133
Originally Posted By nzgs⏩
Follow the money!....
And conveniently the solutions for climate change always involve grand central government projects, large scientific grants and large tax rises on everything from food to cars to energy.It's almost as if bureaucrats and climate scientists have realised that climate change is a great vehicle for them to secure their careers.
And conveniently the solutions for climate change always involve grand central government projects, large scientific grants and large tax rises on everything from food to cars to energy.It's almost as if bureaucrats and climate scientists have realised that climate change is a great vehicle for them to secure their careers.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 01:19 PM
-
#134
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...billion-a-day/
Pull quote;
"The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Thats the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or as Jo Nova notes its the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.
But theres a subtle difference between these two industries the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?
....
When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever.Its already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure.Yet unlike your online shopping which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry you get precisely nothing in return...."
Not only is it about money it is about control...not freedom of choice...
Pull quote;
"The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Thats the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or as Jo Nova notes its the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.
But theres a subtle difference between these two industries the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?
....
When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever.Its already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure.Yet unlike your online shopping which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry you get precisely nothing in return...."
Not only is it about money it is about control...not freedom of choice...
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 01:23 PM
-
#135
- rainieravesouth
- So Fly My Ash is Lined Up
-
- rainieravesouth
- So Fly My Ash is Lined Up
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,105
- Rep Power: 21207
-
-
climate change? you mean science fiction?
only climate change is from season to season
only climate change is from season to season
- Rep "super stupid jeans" pics on sight
11-04-2016, 01:31 PM
-
#136
- Ashton117
- Addicted to repping back
-
- Ashton117
- Addicted to repping back
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Posts: 6,910
- Rep Power: 3373
-
-
Originally Posted By nzgs⏩
Yeah it's more like bureaucrats and fossil fuel based energy companies realized denying climate change is a great vehicle for their careersIt's almost as if bureaucrats and climate scientists have realised that climate change is a great vehicle for them to secure their careers.
Reminds me of people denying that smoking is bad for your health
Any posts made are purely fictional in nature and by no means is anything I say to be taken seriously. Any and all pictures I post are pictures widely available on the internet and any discussions I am involved in are purely hypothetical or are commentary in nature and should not constitute advice or be considered advice.
11-04-2016, 01:32 PM
-
#137
- godownfighting
- Banned
-
- godownfighting
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb 2013
- Location: Chad
- Posts: 10,869
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By Didlid⏩
this this and this the enviroment is always going to change laugh at retarded leftists who believe in global warmingLol'd
I don't get why these celebrities make stupid **** like this, they really do act as though they're above everybody else.
Also climate change has been happening since the beginning of earth. Its just exactly the same as nature, animals go extinct/new ones appear, populations rise/populations drop, plants grow/plants die.
The worlds climate will always change and it always has changed. I'm not denying that we are possibly speeding the process up but thats what happens when people make decisions, things change forever.
I don't get why these celebrities make stupid **** like this, they really do act as though they're above everybody else.
Also climate change has been happening since the beginning of earth. Its just exactly the same as nature, animals go extinct/new ones appear, populations rise/populations drop, plants grow/plants die.
The worlds climate will always change and it always has changed. I'm not denying that we are possibly speeding the process up but thats what happens when people make decisions, things change forever.
11-04-2016, 01:39 PM
-
#138
- Reliance012
- Registered User
-
- Reliance012
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2012
- Posts: 7,601
- Rep Power: 51600
-
-
Originally Posted By nzgs⏩
Of course it isn't a popularity contest. However, when there is a strong consensus among the experts of any given field, there's a reason for it- this consensus is backed by enormous amounts of empirical evidence which has subsequently been published. Can a consensus change? Absolutely, but it does so WITH THE EVIDENCE.Ok I'm gonna bite, again.
Science is not a popularity contest. If there was a absolute consensus on climate change - which there isn't, the 97% statistic is a famous myth, like the wage gap - it would count for nothing. A scientific theory is as strong as the evidence on which it is based, not the number of scientists who believe in it. If science was based on consensus then we would still be living in mud huts.
Usually when someone invokes an scientific appeal to popularity it's a cue to disregard their opinion but let's address your other points too. You believe that the cause of global warming is humans, based on the narrative that increased greenhouse gases emissions are driving temperatures. If this were true then we should see temperature changes lagging after changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. We should be able to accurately model temperature changes based on greenhouse gas levels. Unfortuntely the models have not worked, to the extent that the climate scientists have had to falsify past data to make it fit, most notably data from Paraguay and Iceland which were fixed to show warming trends when they showed cooling trends.
Then there's the fact that the global data isn't actually based on any real measurements, because vast regions of the planets do not have any logging instruments. What happens is that (falsified) data from some parts of the world like america, europe and asia are extrapolated based on computer models to the rest of the globe. So we don't actually know what is happening globally, when you see fancy graphs of heatmaps placed on top of a world map you're seeing a computer model, not actual data.
On top of the rampant data falsification (can you imagine the fallout if it emerged that the Higgs Boson data was falsified to support the standard model? ), there is also the small matter that temperatures have not risen in recent years in response to rising greenhouse gases. As a result of this, climate scientists have hitched their entire ideology to the notion that global warming is still occuring but only deep in the ocean, where conveniently we can't measure it.
So instead of a bulletproof scientific consensus (numerous science nobel prize winners openly question climate science), all you have are some computer models that don't agree with historic data, don't explain present data, make future predictions that invariably turn out to be incorrect.
And conveniently the solutions for climate change always involve grand central government projects, large scientific grants and large tax rises on everything from food to cars to energy.It's almost as if bureaucrats and climate scientists have realised that climate change is a great vehicle for them to secure their careers.
Science is not a popularity contest. If there was a absolute consensus on climate change - which there isn't, the 97% statistic is a famous myth, like the wage gap - it would count for nothing. A scientific theory is as strong as the evidence on which it is based, not the number of scientists who believe in it. If science was based on consensus then we would still be living in mud huts.
Usually when someone invokes an scientific appeal to popularity it's a cue to disregard their opinion but let's address your other points too. You believe that the cause of global warming is humans, based on the narrative that increased greenhouse gases emissions are driving temperatures. If this were true then we should see temperature changes lagging after changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. We should be able to accurately model temperature changes based on greenhouse gas levels. Unfortuntely the models have not worked, to the extent that the climate scientists have had to falsify past data to make it fit, most notably data from Paraguay and Iceland which were fixed to show warming trends when they showed cooling trends.
Then there's the fact that the global data isn't actually based on any real measurements, because vast regions of the planets do not have any logging instruments. What happens is that (falsified) data from some parts of the world like america, europe and asia are extrapolated based on computer models to the rest of the globe. So we don't actually know what is happening globally, when you see fancy graphs of heatmaps placed on top of a world map you're seeing a computer model, not actual data.
On top of the rampant data falsification (can you imagine the fallout if it emerged that the Higgs Boson data was falsified to support the standard model? ), there is also the small matter that temperatures have not risen in recent years in response to rising greenhouse gases. As a result of this, climate scientists have hitched their entire ideology to the notion that global warming is still occuring but only deep in the ocean, where conveniently we can't measure it.
So instead of a bulletproof scientific consensus (numerous science nobel prize winners openly question climate science), all you have are some computer models that don't agree with historic data, don't explain present data, make future predictions that invariably turn out to be incorrect.
And conveniently the solutions for climate change always involve grand central government projects, large scientific grants and large tax rises on everything from food to cars to energy.It's almost as if bureaucrats and climate scientists have realised that climate change is a great vehicle for them to secure their careers.
"Scientist" is a vague term with no relevance here. I don't care about your HS bio teacher's opinion. She wouldn't understand the first three sentences of an abstract relating to climate change. Climate change scientists who publish, alternatively, are relevant. And you are demonstrably wrong. The consensus is overwhelmingly lopsided.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002
Again, you're spewing out complete nonsense you've read god knows where. It is based on real measurements, as well as simulations, as well as mathematical models. We don't need to measure every square inch of the globe. Of course it is extrapolated. THAT IS HOW ALL SCIENCE WORKS- both deductive and inductive reasoning. It is literally how you form hypotheses about ongoing questions. It builds upon itself, verifying (or not) through alternative methods. In the case of climate change, you would have a point if we had a couple sets of data from different areas, with limited scopes and a conclusion derived exclusively from that data. But we don't. We have thousands of data sets using completely different methods all independent of each other that all agree with each other.
This isn't a conspiracy, friend. As much as a scientist may want to financially benefit by rigging data, he can't. It is all published. It is all reproduced. If it is falsified, then it will stick out like a sore thumb. It will be inconsistent with the hundreds of other data sets published prior or soon after.
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
11-04-2016, 02:01 PM
-
#139
- Canadian_Lifter
- Registered User
-
- Canadian_Lifter
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2008
- Age: 35
- Posts: 4,241
- Rep Power: 5949
-
-
Originally Posted By Penile_Dementia⏩
I've got to hand it to you - the logic of your argument is impeccable. This idiot is just ignorant and no amount of logic will change his mind.If this is the reason you are giving for having no response to what I wrote, it becomes suspect that you don't know what I wrote. But I'll take it.
Delpecx admits that he has no response to what I wrote in refutation to him about "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, because he simply doesn't believe man is changing the climate. Good, we're done.
Delpecx admits that he has no response to what I wrote in refutation to him about "1970s experts thought there'd be global cooling" and what this might mean for what experts think now, because he simply doesn't believe man is changing the climate. Good, we're done.
It seems that a group of Americans are such strong advocates of unwavering ignorance and conspiracy (why do you think they bring up 'money' as their argument?): if there was resounding scientific evidence of climate warming, you'd get Americans doubting the science itself or charging it as falsely collected because the scientific community is entirely liberal (yes, political leaning is believed to be involved in literally everything here - it's glaringly pathetic)
Really, your opponents possess absolutely no capability of critically thinking. Some don't even understand what they're talking about and don't have the mental capacity or maturity to read up on it. Some days I think it's a reflection of how the American education system is failing. Education is not held as a high priority here whatsoever.
In a logical debate you've won entirely.But sometimes idiots just don't listen to logic whatsoever.
For a pristine example: how in the world does a candidate for the next American presidency call Climate Change a Chinese hoax?
Canadian American dual citizen
Chemical engineer crew
MD crew
Gastroenterologist crew
11-04-2016, 02:04 PM
-
#140
11-04-2016, 03:33 PM
-
#141
The ad hominid attacks have begun.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 03:37 PM
-
#142
Originally Posted By Canadian_Lifter⏩
I don't doubt that the climate is changing.I've got to hand it to you - the logic of your argument is impeccable. This idiot is just ignorant and no amount of logic will change his mind.
It seems that a group of Americans are such strong advocates of unwavering ignorance and conspiracy (why do you think they bring up 'money' as their argument?): if there was resounding scientific evidence of climate warming, you'd get Americans doubting the science itself or charging it as falsely collected because the scientific community is entirely liberal (yes, political leaning is believed to be involved in literally everything here - it's glaringly pathetic)
Really, your opponents possess absolutely no capability of critically thinking. Some don't even understand what they're talking about and don't have the mental capacity or maturity to read up on it. Some days I think it's a reflection of how the American education system is failing. Education is not held as a high priority here whatsoever.
In a logical debate you've won entirely.But sometimes idiots just don't listen to logic whatsoever.
For a pristine example: how in the world does a candidate for the next American presidency call Climate Change a Chinese hoax?
It seems that a group of Americans are such strong advocates of unwavering ignorance and conspiracy (why do you think they bring up 'money' as their argument?): if there was resounding scientific evidence of climate warming, you'd get Americans doubting the science itself or charging it as falsely collected because the scientific community is entirely liberal (yes, political leaning is believed to be involved in literally everything here - it's glaringly pathetic)
Really, your opponents possess absolutely no capability of critically thinking. Some don't even understand what they're talking about and don't have the mental capacity or maturity to read up on it. Some days I think it's a reflection of how the American education system is failing. Education is not held as a high priority here whatsoever.
In a logical debate you've won entirely.But sometimes idiots just don't listen to logic whatsoever.
For a pristine example: how in the world does a candidate for the next American presidency call Climate Change a Chinese hoax?
I just doubt they WE are the ones doing it.
As I have said history shows the climate was MUCH warmer than today LONG before the Industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels.
Care to explain how that could be?
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 03:43 PM
-
#143
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 04:06 PM
-
#144
- GenghisBro
- Banned
-
- GenghisBro
- Banned
- Join Date: Nov 2014
- Location: United States
- Posts: 5,866
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
You guys arguing about climate change, but you still haven't proven that the Earth isn't flat.
11-04-2016, 04:09 PM
-
#145
Originally Posted By forthenoodz⏩
B-b-but who makes the electricity to re-charge those battery powered cars?can anyone redpill me on Electric vehicles? are they cheaper than gasoline vehicles?
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 04:10 PM
-
#146
Originally Posted By GenghisBro⏩
You guys arguing about climate change, but you still haven't proven that the Earth isn't flat.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.
1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
11-04-2016, 07:27 PM
-
#147
- TestosteroneTy
- Registered User
-
- TestosteroneTy
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2008
- Age: 38
- Posts: 649
- Rep Power: 3716
-
-
I guess pollution is just a myth too. Jesus. Let's just say for a second that climate change is a big hoax and the earth isn't warming. Don't you think it's a good idea to switch over to clean cheap energy that we have an UNLIMITED supply of as opposed to oil which only has a finite amount?
Literally I can't think of one good reason why we shouldn't be doing this anyways? Like what sort of mental gymnastics are you guys doing that makes you think the status quo is a great idea?
Literally I can't think of one good reason why we shouldn't be doing this anyways? Like what sort of mental gymnastics are you guys doing that makes you think the status quo is a great idea?
Firefighter US Army
Former Bodybuilding.com Employee
I rep back 3.4k
11-04-2016, 08:05 PM
-
#148
11-04-2016, 08:17 PM
-
#149
- Neapolitan1
- Registered User
-
- Neapolitan1
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2016
- Posts: 139
- Rep Power: 491
-
-
11-04-2016, 08:30 PM
-
#150
- dbluevette
- Let's go Brandon!
-
- dbluevette
- Let's go Brandon!
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Location: Texas, United States
- Posts: 16,355
- Rep Power: 70907
-
-
Originally Posted By MACosmin⏩
One flight of a commercial jet uses more fuel than one person will use in his/her lifetime.he did kill a bear though
Balloon knot connoisseur.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts