Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Padawanbater2 said:
Lying dumbass;

-66% of those aged over 65 believed that climate change is caused by human actions

-by contrast, 79% of 18-34 year olds take the view that human action is responsible for climate change

-63% of those with no post-school qualifications were unconvinced about the role of humans in producing climate change

-University graduates were much more likely to take the opposite view, with 86% agreeing that human activity was responsible - See more at:

http://www.ecopedia.com/environment...who-believes-it-is-real/#sthash.FLLdLebm.dpuf

Not that it would matter anyway because none of you denytards accept anything unless it denies ACC too, which is why you detest science so much. It's objective, and it's objectively telling you you're all a bunch of fringe morons who can't read a pie chart. As Sanders noted, in every other facet of reality you accept science, medicine, food health/safety, engineering, etc. but when it comes to climate change, the science goes out the window and it's all a HOAX!!!

If 97% of doctors told you you had cancer, you'd get chemo, and if you wouldn't you would deserve every moment of pain you received for being a dumbass.

Stop being dumbasses.


I think you have me confused with Kynes
Click to expand...

Chemo goes way beyond pain.
 
MuyLocoNC said:
Was that an apology? Was my post not 100% accurate in regards to the latest poll by Gallup. Did I lie?

No, I didn't.

Useful Idiot.
Click to expand...

So you half agree with Gallup when your limited functioning brain makes you think nobody gives a shit about climate change, when every measurable source says otherwise, but deny their entire existence when they objectively conclude anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening..

Dumbass.
 
Doer said:
Chemo goes way beyond pain.
Click to expand...

If 97% of medical doctors told you you had stage 4 cancer and required chemo immediately, and one fringe crackpot with a degree from nowhere university told you to just wait it out, the verdict isn't in, and you don't want to harm your body by using chemo when we don't have enough evidence to warrant it yet, what would you do?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
If 97% of medical doctors told you you had stage 4 cancer and required chemo immediately, and one fringe crackpot with a degree from nowhere university told you to just wait it out, the verdict isn't in, and you don't want to harm your body by using chemo when we don't have enough evidence to warrant it yet, what would you do?
Click to expand...

I would not wish it on you or say you deserve it.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Would you get the chemo or wait for more evidence?
Click to expand...
The problem is in your example the guys cleaning the floor are making the diagnosis.

Psychology major? Totally a climatologist.

Lawyer? Obviously a climatologist too.

Some day when you're not making minimum wage people might listen to you, for now we know you're just a loser with an unhealthy obsession with rape.
 
Harrekin said:
The problem is in your example the guys cleaning the floor are making the diagnosis.

Psychology major? Totally a climatologist.

Lawyer? Obviously a climatologist too.

Some day when you're not making minimum wage people might listen to you, for now we know you're just a loser with an unhealthy obsession with rape.
Click to expand...

IPCC, 34 national science academies, you colossal moron. You think all of them are psychologists and lawyers?

The only obsession with rape I have is that of raping you ignoramuses in regards to science, and you just bend over and fucking take it every post you make. You filthy sluts, you..

Doer said:
I'm only addressing the mean spirited comment of wishing evil on someone that simply disagrees.
Click to expand...

I didn't wish stage 4 cancer on anyone. I used cancer and chemo as an analogy to the climate change issue.

Every person on the planet would get the chemo and if they wouldn't, that's definitive enough proof for me that their genes don't belong in the future
 
Doer said:
I'm only addressing the mean spirited comment of wishing evil on someone that simply disagrees.
Click to expand...
I want to put forward the hypothesis that climate fanatics like PadawanRapist produce moar hot air than industry, just look at how the temperature is above average in liberal bastion cities?

Now I've the same level of evidence as the IPCC, and if anyone else agrees I've got consensus.

Me = Dat Winz0r?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
IPCC, 34 national science academies, you colossal moron. You think all of them are psychologists and lawyers?

The only obsession with rape I have is that of raping you ignoramuses in regards to science, and you just bend over and fucking take it every post you make. You filthy sluts, you..



I didn't wish stage 4 cancer on anyone. I used cancer and chemo as an analogy to the climate change issue.

Every person on the planet would get the chemo and if they wouldn't, that's definitive enough proof for me that their genes don't belong in the future
Click to expand...
So 34 science academies out of the 150ish modern western countries...

Cool consensus, bro.

Let me ask you, how many of said science academies recieve additional funding because of their views on AGW?
 
Harrekin said:
So 34 science academies out of the 150ish modern western countries...

Cool consensus, bro.

Let me ask you, how many of said science academies recieve additional funding because of their views on AGW?
Click to expand...

Omfg, for real...? You think every country in the modern world has a national science academy?
 
Harrekin said:
Did I say that?

I think you'll find that more generally I was shitting over your assertion that your numbers matter.
Click to expand...

There are 34 national academies of science in the world, all 34 unanimously agree with me

0 agree with you

I wonder why you think the numbers don't matter..
 
Padawanbater2 said:
There are 34 national academies of science in the world, all 34 unanimously agree with me

0 agree with you

I wonder why you think the numbers don't matter..
Click to expand...
Listen Padawan, I think we should clean up our energy sources too, just I think of it as a "let's bring our species to the next level" situation, not a "humans are setting the world on fire!! SCARY GASES! AHHH" situation.

The dataset is too short and wraught with inaccuracies, the models have virtually no predictive value (they're adjusted after the fact, with "new data" ie they were wrong originally).

There is no point in taxing people more for their gas, their carbon footprint is tiny anyway. There's no point in making logistics more expensive, again the little guy is hit through higher prices.

Put funding into real research, not into the "general pool" for politicians boondoggles under the guise of a cataclysmic event when even the IPCC is only relatively sure that we've caused approximately 50% of a 0.1°C increase over the last 120 years.

You can't say "carbon bad" if you can't follow up with "_____ Good".

I say we should exploit wind and solar, fusion if/when ITER is successful, etc as an issue of common sense, but carbon still has its place until something else comes along.
 
Harrekin said:
Listen Padawan, I think we should clean up our energy sources too, just I think of it as a "let's bring our species to the next level" situation, not a "humans are setting the world on fire!! SCARY GASES! AHHH" situation.
Click to expand...

How do you suggest we "bring our species to the next level"?

The science says we have a window of opportunity to act before it becomes too late to act. The metaphorical meteor is heading towards Earth, now is not the time to sit around and wait for it to hit us, we need to act now. The climate is changing now more rapidly than ever recorded, change is inevitable. The longer we wait to enact that change, the harder and the more expensive it will be.

Harrekin said:
The dataset is too short and wraught with inaccuracies, the models have virtually no predictive value (they're adjusted after the fact, with "new data" ie they were wrong originally).
Click to expand...

Completely wrong. Why do virtually all scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusion on ACC?

Harrekin said:
There is no point in taxing people more for their gas, their carbon footprint is tiny anyway. There's no point in making logistics more expensive, again the little guy is hit through higher prices.
Click to expand...

Nothing but a talking point right from senator Boozman's mouth, and accurately addressed by Christine Whitman on post #2129. Watch the CSPAN video
 
Padawanbater2 said:
How do you suggest we "bring our species to the next level"?

The science says we have a window of opportunity to act before it becomes too late to act. The metaphorical meteor is heading towards Earth, now is not the time to sit around and wait for it to hit us, we need to act now. The climate is changing now more rapidly than ever recorded, change is inevitable. The longer we wait to enact that change, the harder and the more expensive it will be.



Completely wrong. Why do virtually all scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusion on ACC?



Nothing but a talking point right from senator Boozman's mouth, and accurately addressed by Christine Whitman on post #2129. Watch the CSPAN video
Click to expand...
The climate fluctuates naturally, why can't you see that? It'll bounce back and there's plenty of time for research whilst using carbon, until someone comes up with a game changer.

I propose your science academies study alternative fuel sources rather than this AGW exaggerated bullshit.

What's your proposal? Carbon credits?

Mine achieves something, yours is simply a Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt campaign.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
How do you suggest we "bring our species to the next level"?

The science says we have a window of opportunity to act before it becomes too late to act. The metaphorical meteor is heading towards Earth, now is not the time to sit around and wait for it to hit us, we need to act now. The climate is changing now more rapidly than ever recorded, change is inevitable. The longer we wait to enact that change, the harder and the more expensive it will be.



Completely wrong. Why do virtually all scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusion on ACC?



Nothing but a talking point right from senator Boozman's mouth, and accurately addressed by Christine Whitman on post #2129. Watch the CSPAN video
Click to expand...

So when was the last time you drove a car?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top