THE ERA OF TRUMP

[C-Mag]

I disagree, and you didn't address my second point.


'Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory. '

[Montegriffo]

I disagree, and you didn't address my second point.


'Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory. '

That's no longer a point worth debating.

[Fife]

Now we're making progress.

[C-Mag]

I disagree, and you didn't address my second point.


'Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory. '

That's no longer a point worth debating.

What ?

It's the whole fucking origin of all these climate treaties, but the veracity of the climate claims don't merit debate ?

[Speaker to Animals]

Can somebody point on that graph where we all die? Is it where global annual temperature averages reach what they were in the middle ages?




Or, if it gets to the same average temperature that it was when Augustus Caesar was still alive and getting pegged by his degenerate wife, then we really need to create an authoritarian neoliberal regime to rule over the planet??

I just want to get an idea of what historical temperatures we need to see before it all goes tits up, and what threshold we need to see before this globalist government becomes some self-evident solution that "no longer requires debate".

[Montegriffo]

I disagree, and you didn't address my second point.


'Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory. '

That's no longer a point worth debating.

What ?

It's the whole fucking origin of all these climate treaties, but the veracity of the climate claims don't merit debate ?

Not what I said.
I said there's no point.

The veracity of the claims is settled.
The vast consensus of actual climate scientists say it is so what do you have to add from your peer-reviewed scientific studies?

When someone is denying the science to that degree you might as well be debating the existence of God with a born again Christian.

The argument is already won so there really is no point.

Better to debate what can be done to slow it down.

[C-Mag]

That's no longer a point worth debating.

What ?

It's the whole fucking origin of all these climate treaties, but the veracity of the climate claims don't merit debate ?

Not what I said.
I said there's no point.

The veracity of the claims is settled.
The vast consensus of actual climate scientists say it is so what do you have to add from your peer-reviewed scientific studies?

When someone is denying the science to that degree you might as well be debating the existence of God with a born again Christian.

The argument is already won so there really is no point.

Better to debate what can be done to slow it down.

In Scientific Principals the argument is not over until theories are proven through the scientific method and become Scientific Law. Why do you hate Science ?


BTW: Finland and Japan say AGW is bullshit
https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish- ... e-warming/

[Montegriffo]

Yeah, lots of scientists funded by oil companies say the same.
I'm gonna stick with the 97% though.

[C-Mag]

Yeah, lots of scientists funded by oil companies say the same.
I'm gonna stick with the 97% though.

It is only a theory at best until it is proveable and repeatable by Scientific Method.

Why do you Hate Science ?

[Montegriffo]

Yeah, lots of scientists funded by oil companies say the same.
I'm gonna stick with the 97% though.

It is only a theory at best until it is proveable and repeatable by Scientific Method.

Why do you Hate Science ?

Why do you hate scientific theories?
What have you got against time or gravity?
Are they real or are they just theories?

Try emptying a bucket of water over your head and see how long it takes to dry out.
Theoretically of course.