Trump Demands Full Embargo of China

[abandonconflict]

My god man, answer the question and I'll answer yours.

It's simple.

We weren't talking about 9-11. We were talking about climate change. I replied regarding climate change and we both made comments directed to each other regarding climate change.

Now you're saying that you won't talk about climate change anymore but you demand that we talk about 9-11. I don't see how this deflection supports your position on climate science.

 

[MoodyShoes]

We weren't talking about 9-11. We were talking about climate change. I replied regarding climate change and we both made comments directed to each other regarding climate change.

Now you're saying that you won't talk about climate change anymore but you demand that we talk about 9-11. I don't see how this deflection supports your position on climate science.

Because either you support the scientific concensus, or you don't.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[radiant Rudy]

Don't let old uncle whatever see your misspelling of 'you're', or he'll follow you around for no reason other than sadness.

Kicking your mangy, toothless, bloated carcass to the curb is not "following you around" creepy fucking idiot.

 

[The Gram Reaper]

Thank you.

Now do we have any rational people on here or am I barking up the wrong tree?

The latter lol

 

[UncleBuck]

Shhhh

The fact that you are an adherent of a neo nazi conspiracy theory isn’t illegal, you can feel free to talk more about it now that you brought it up

 

[UncleBuck]

The latter lol

In trying to act in solidarity with your fellow sock puppet, you just unintentionally insulted both yourself and him/her/it

 

[zeddd]

Because either you support the scientific concensus, or you don't.

You can't have it both ways.

Can you summarise the scientific consensus you mention?

 

[MoodyShoes]

Kicking your mangy, toothless, bloated carcass to the curb is not "following you around" creepy fucking idiot.

Thank you.

 

[MoodyShoes]

The fact that you are an adherent of a neo nazi conspiracy theory isn’t illegal, you can feel free to talk more about it now that you brought it up

Shhh

 

[abandonconflict]

Because either you support the scientific concensus, or you don't.

You can't have it both ways.

Consensus*

It's true that there is a near consensus on the theory of anthropogenic climate change. 97% of peer-reviewed studies conclude in agreement with ACC. The other 3 percent were not conclusive.

So I will take this as an answer that you can not produce even a single citation of a peer-reviewed study which contradicts ACC. now that you have answered my question, I will answer your question about 911.

You asked me what I believe about 9-11. My answer is that I don't care. Everyone saw those planes strike the towers, I don't have to question why the towers fell. Clearly the steel beams melted and people were terrorized by the terrorism.

We can make this a 9-11 conspiracy therad now that you have conceded the climate change debate.

 

[MoodyShoes]

Can you summarise the scientific consensus you mention?

With regards to 9/11?

The countless peer reviewed journals from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Of which there are (last time I checked) over 140,000 members.

Versus the silly group of 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' that has 3000 members.

It's very simple.

 

[abandonconflict]

With regards to 9/11?

The countless peer reviewed journals from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Of which there are (last time I checked) over 140,000 members.

Versus the silly group of 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' that has 3000 members.

It's very simple.

We get it, you would rather talk about 9-11 than climate change.

 

[zeddd]

With regards to 9/11?

The countless peer reviewed journals from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Of which there are (last time I checked) over 140,000 members.

Versus the silly group of 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' that has 3000 members.

It's very simple.

So you can’t summarise it yourself? Why do you promote something you don’t comprehend?

 

[MoodyShoes]

Consensus*

It's true that there is a near consensus on the theory of anthropogenic climate change. 97% of peer-reviewed studies conclude in agreement with ACC. The other 3 percent were not conclusive.

So I will take this as an answer that you can not produce even a single citation of a peer-reviewed study which contradicts ACC. now that you have answered my question, I will answer your question about 911.

You asked me what I believe about 9-11. My answer is that I don't care. Everyone saw those planes strike the towers, I don't have to question why the towers fell. Clearly the steel beams melted and people were terrorized by the terrorism.

We can make this a 9-11 conspiracy therad now that you have conceded the climate change debate.

You must know, because you can string a coherant sentence together, that the 97% is a complete fallacy?

The methodology used in that study is so far beyond rational that it isn't even worth recognising.

Now, is the climate changing?

Yes.

Are we as humans accelerating the change?

I personally think yes, we are.

But by what degree?

No one can answer this question and if they can't, then I refuse to join the climate change cult.

 

[UncleBuck]

I refuse to join the climate change cult.

but neo nazi conspiracy theories are fine

 

[zeddd]

I can summarise anthropogenic climate change: the ratios of Carbon 12,13 and 14 are changing to ratios consistent with burning fossil fuels, plant based carbon deposits have higher 12 C ratios due to their preference for that isotope.
Can you summarise the science regarding 911? @MoodyShoes

 

[abandonconflict]

You must know, because you can string a coherant sentence together, that the 97% is a complete fallasy?

The methodology used in that study is so far beyond rational that it isn't even worth recognising.

Now, is the climate changing?

Yes.

Are we as humans accelerating the change?

I personally think yes, we are.

But by what degree?

No one can answer this question and if they can't, then I refuse to join the climate change cult.

So you're focused only on the meta-study (Oreskes et al) which compiled the results of thousands of studies to attack it. Where is your citation? It is not fallacious just because you say so. That study was peer-reviewed and has withstood fanatical attack. Every single study compiled therein has also withstood peer-review and attack.

Remember, you have already conceded the fact that you can't produce even one citation of a single peer-reviewed study which contradicts ACC.

 

[Grandpapy]

You must know, because you can string a coherant sentence together, that the 97% is a complete fallacy?

The methodology used in that study is so far beyond rational that it isn't even worth recognising.

Now, is the climate changing?

Yes.

Are we as humans accelerating the change?

I personally think yes, we are.

But by what degree?

No one can answer this question and if they can't, then I refuse to join the climate change cult.

What % do you want to hear? and by what perspective do you call it a cult?

What does a bookie require?

 

[zeddd]

You must know, because you can string a coherant sentence together, that the 97% is a complete fallacy?

The methodology used in that study is so far beyond rational that it isn't even worth recognising.

Now, is the climate changing?

Yes.

Are we as humans accelerating the change?

I personally think yes, we are.

But by what degree?

No one can answer this question and if they can't, then I refuse to join the climate change cult.

Does this help?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Cox/publication/31936509_Cox_PM_Betts_RA_Jones_CD_Spall_SA_Totterdell_IJ_Acceleration_of_global_warming_due_to_carbon-cycle_feedbacks_in_a_coupled_climate_model_Nature_408_184-187/links/02bfe511aa8c50b98f000000/Cox-PM-Betts-RA-Jones-CD-Spall-SA-Totterdell-IJ-Acceleration-of-global-warming-due-to-carbon-cycle-feedbacks-in-a-coupled-climate-model-Nature-408-184-187.pdf

 

[MoodyShoes]

I can summarise anthropogenic climate change: the ratios of Carbon 12,13 and 14 are changing to ratios consistent with burning fossil fuels, plant based carbon deposits have higher 12 C ratios due to their preference for that isotope.
Can you summarise the science regarding 911? @MoodyShoes

Of course they are, so what is the increase in ppm of CO2 in the past 10 years?

Yup, not so worrying really is it.

And if you really want me to flood this thread with countless peer reviewed journals that prove the twin towers collapsing was entirely within scientific reason, I will.