THE ERA OF TRUMP

[brewster]

You see you put the AGW proponents in a can't win. If they say there's doubt because in science there always is, opponents crow "they can't PROVE it!!". If they say it's proven you respond as above. See my quotes above from anti-evolutionists to see the exact same arguments being made. Check out this page https://www.rae.org/essay-links/quotes/ on a serious anti-ev website. BTW these exact same arguments, some by the exact same people, were used by the tobacco industry to refute that their product was harmful.

From my perspective I didn't put them in any position. I'm just looking at the available evidence and my own observations and pointing out that AGW is not settled. I've got as much evidence that Trump is a very stable genius.

So what percentage of climate scientists, not random lay people or scientist in other fields, have to agree for you to say "it's settled"? If doctors told you they were 80% sure you had flesh eating bacteria on your leg, would you insist on no treatment till they were sure?

[C-Mag]

You see you put the AGW proponents in a can't win. If they say there's doubt because in science there always is, opponents crow "they can't PROVE it!!". If they say it's proven you respond as above. See my quotes above from anti-evolutionists to see the exact same arguments being made. Check out this page https://www.rae.org/essay-links/quotes/ on a serious anti-ev website. BTW these exact same arguments, some by the exact same people, were used by the tobacco industry to refute that their product was harmful.

From my perspective I didn't put them in any position. I'm just looking at the available evidence and my own observations and pointing out that AGW is not settled. I've got as much evidence that Trump is a very stable genius.

So what percentage of climate scientists, not random lay people or scientist in other fields, have to agree for you to say "it's settled"? If doctors told you they were 80% sure you had flesh eating bacteria on your leg, would you insist on no treatment till they were sure?

What percentage of the doctors are looking at my bacteria are Dr Holly Goodhead and experienced in interstellar bacteriology and virology ?

[brewster]

From my perspective I didn't put them in any position. I'm just looking at the available evidence and my own observations and pointing out that AGW is not settled. I've got as much evidence that Trump is a very stable genius.

So what percentage of climate scientists, not random lay people or scientist in other fields, have to agree for you to say "it's settled"? If doctors told you they were 80% sure you had flesh eating bacteria on your leg, would you insist on no treatment till they were sure?

What percentage of the doctors are looking at my bacteria are Dr Holly Goodhead and experienced in interstellar bacteriology and virology ?

Don't know what you're trying to say. If it makes a difference to you suppose they're all specialists in infectious bacteria. The much argued 97% specifies published or actively publshing climate scientists. https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... vanced.htm

[C-Mag]

Fuckin with ya little with a lame Bond film joke.

I know the 97% of climate scientists agree. I don't agree that only the selected scientists can understand it properly.

Here's Italian Scientists objecting to the way AGW is sold

However, the anthropic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .
On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.
This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.
The anthropic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.
https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2019/ ... l-warming/

The Fins recently did likewise and the Japanese confirmed the Fin findings.

[C-Mag]

[StCapps]

97% of scientists might agree that humans are having some impact on climate change, but there is no 97% consensus on just how much human contributions are driving that climate change, and there is no 97% consensus that the sky is falling therefore massive government intervention is the required to lower manmade carbon emissions, or it will be a major catastrophe.

That's just what misguided environmentalists believe and want you to believe, so they can trick themselves and others into siding with their proposed centrally planned boondoggles. They use the sky falling as justification for trying ideas that make no sense otherwise, because that's the only way they have any chance at selling the nonsense they propose, which doesn't even really address the problem they imagine in their heads, they just want to feel like they are doing something, regardless of how ineffective "doing something" is.

The environmentalists simply claim it will be hell on earth if you aren't forced to do as they say. Many environmentalist uses the tactics of religions while claiming they are all about the science, but they are just lying to themselves and others by pretending like a religious impulse isn't driving their behavior.

[Montegriffo]

[Montegriffo]

[Montegriffo]

Is this true?

[StCapps]

Is this true?

Sometimes, but for some reason, when Trump does it, it backfires less often then when other POTUS's do it, which is strange.