Socialism

[StCapps]

So easy shutting down bad arguments.
But the dummies are resilient to processing contrary information, and tenacious in holding the few ideas they've managed to grasp.
All they know is America bad, America polluter, and all the rest is just evil wizardry perpetrated by evil Americans.
Derp.

Climate Doomsday is always right around the corner, no matter how many times they were wrong about it before, this time it's really coming.
William Miller Knows.

F-35 Doomsday too.

Winslow Wheeler knows.

America bad, J-20 good derp.

Millerist fake reform hacks, who knew?

Millerist Fake Reform Hacks are all over this forum.

F-35 Doomsday, Demographic Doomsday, Civil War Doomsday, Economic Doomsday, Climate Doomsday, same-same.

All those doomsday roads lead to The Great Disappointment.

If there really is no future, then there is no need to worry about something you can't control, and if there is a future, then it makes no sense to indulge in doomsday theories that have little chance of coming to pass.

Either way, The Doomsayers can go fuck themselves, trying to shame people into behaving the way they want, otherwise doomsday.

I'm on to their bullshit.

[brewster]

Look at 2 and 2b and you have your answer to “why”.

That, plus we don’t just change things because of “my fuckery feels”. We change based off of logic and facts, which so far there is scant few without distortion.

"Scant few facts" only comes from rejecting the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the worlds climate scientists. Facts rejected because they don't fit with what you want to do, like keep burning coal. Rejection of science may be the essence of conservative thought, the Church was sure conservative tormenting Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun, but reality doesn't go away.

I'm not surprised at all, poll after poll for decades has found Americans are scientifically illiterate. How can you expect people who don't know the earth revolves around the sun once a year to understand global warming? Now, historically most people have been ignorant, but they trusted the educated to understand for them. But arrogant, 'free thinking' Americans know they're right, no matter how little they actually understand.

A small sampling of "the ignorance chronicles"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/image ... Jr4DChKiUk
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-americans ... ution.html
https://news.gallup.com/poll/2380/one-t ... hosts.aspx

[Haumana]

"Scant few facts" only comes from rejecting the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the worlds climate scientists. Facts rejected because they don't fit with what you want to do, like keep burning coal. Rejection of science may be the essence of conservative thought, the Church was sure conservative tormenting Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun, but reality doesn't go away.

I'm not surprised at all, poll after poll for decades has found Americans are scientifically illiterate. How can you expect people who don't know the earth revolves around the sun once a year to understand global warming? Now, historically most people have been ignorant, but they trusted the educated to understand for them. But arrogant, 'free thinking' Americans know they're right, no matter how little they actually understand.

A small sampling of "the ignorance chronicles"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/image ... Jr4DChKiUk
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-americans ... ution.html
https://news.gallup.com/poll/2380/one-t ... hosts.aspx

Can we do the failed destruction of the Earth prophecies next? Ice age and Inconvenient Truth.

Have you ever gone back and figured out what the advocates of these doomsday sayers stand to gain from their prophecies? Did you hear the one about where the globalist environmentalists can't even model the water vapor? It is kind of an important ingredient in the global warming stew and it can't be accounted for. How much of this have you really dug into?

Nevermind the fact that you capitalize on one of the top 15 polluting cities in the US.

[The Conservative]

Look at 2 and 2b and you have your answer to “why”.

That, plus we don’t just change things because of “my fuckery feels”. We change based off of logic and facts, which so far there is scant few without distortion.

"Scant few facts" only comes from rejecting the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the worlds climate scientists. Facts rejected because they don't fit with what you want to do, like keep burning coal. Rejection of science may be the essence of conservative thought, the Church was sure conservative tormenting Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun, but reality doesn't go away.

I'm not surprised at all, poll after poll for decades has found Americans are scientifically illiterate. How can you expect people who don't know the earth revolves around the sun once a year to understand global warming? Now, historically most people have been ignorant, but they trusted the educated to understand for them. But arrogant, 'free thinking' Americans know they're right, no matter how little they actually understand.

A small sampling of "the ignorance chronicles"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/image ... Jr4DChKiUk
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-americans ... ution.html
https://news.gallup.com/poll/2380/one-t ... hosts.aspx

Wow, the gullible is strong with this one.

So instead of pointing to facts that would argue your point you move the goalposts.

Good to know you are unwilling to debate.

[Fife]

Suicide Bomber Hot Take:

TIL that Carbon Church priests will tell you that since the government school-prison system leaves Americans illiterate and ignorant, we have to take the priest's word for it that CO2 is actually a pollutant and that Carbon Hell is Real and Hot.

[The Conservative]

Suicide Bomber Hot Take:

TIL that Carbon Church priests will tell you that since the government school-prison system leaves Americans illiterate and ignorant, we have to take the priest's word for it that CO2 is actually a pollutant and that Carbon Hell is Real and Hot.

Ok, so let me ask this, if we scrub all CO2 from the air, do people realize we will have more extreme weather fluctuations?

[brewster]

Can we do the failed destruction of the Earth prophecies next? Ice age and Inconvenient Truth.

Have you ever gone back and figured out what the advocates of these doomsday sayers stand to gain from their prophecies? Did you hear the one about where the globalist environmentalists can't even model the water vapor? It is kind of an important ingredient in the global warming stew and it can't be accounted for. How much of this have you really dug into?

None of those theories was ever agreed with by >90% of all climate scientists. This is more than theories, there's tons of data: "By both the NASA and NOAA analyses, 17 of the 18 warmest years since modern record-keeping began have occurred since 2001".




https://fox2now.com/2018/02/26/nasa-rel ... r-ice-cap/

But there is simply nothing that will convince you since you have made "climate change skeptic" part of your identity.

Nevermind the fact that you capitalize on one of the top 15 polluting cities in the Us.

As for polluting cities, we're back to that "per capita" statistics thing you despise. Being by far the biggest US city, being 15th is doing rather well. 8M people have an effect, the question is whether they would have less or more if you smeared them all over suburbia.

[Haumana]

None of those theories was ever agreed with by >90% of all climate scientists. This is more than theories, there's tons of data: "By both the NASA and NOAA analyses, 17 of the 18 warmest years since modern record-keeping began have occurred since 2001".




https://fox2now.com/2018/02/26/nasa-rel ... r-ice-cap/

But there is simply nothing that will convince you since you have made "climate change skeptic" part of your identity.

Nevermind the fact that you capitalize on one of the top 15 polluting cities in the Us.

As for polluting cities, we're back to that "per capita" statistics thing you despise. Being by far the biggest US city, being 15th is doing rather well. 8M people have an effect, the question is whether they would have less or more if you smeared them all over suburbia.

Have you ever really dug into that 90% number? Do you realize it was a two question questionnaire asked of ALL scientists, including most that don't know dick about climatology? Seriously, haven't you ever wondered about that?

Since 2001??? A graph from 1998 to present does little to show the the vast fluctuations of a rock that is 4.35 billions years old, Chicken Little. Open your apogee and turn off your TV. Don't be scared Homey. If this was truly a human ending crisis then certainly a new money market wouldn't be the answer. Abstinence would be the call of the day. Even then, what the fuck are you really going to do about it? You won't change your lifestyle in any meaningful way that makes you uncomfortable and impacts your offspring.

I despise? I smeared? I hold no illusions about me be in control of anyone but me and mine. Your very existence sucks off the teat of some of the most gross polluting populaces in the US. Yet, you try to claim some moral high ground. #winning

[brewster]

Have you ever really dug into that 90% number? Do you realize it was a two question questionnaire asked of ALL scientists, including most that don't know dick about climatology? Seriously, haven't you ever wondered about that?

If you read this Forbes article, "Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change", it makes clear that what I said about ">90% climate scientists" is basically true. The misquote of "97% of ALL scientists" is what was debunked.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2 ... d77b911576

Denial is just that.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You love to deflect into a personal attack and make random claims without backing them up. You say NYC is "polluting". Show your evidence it's more polluting per capita or you're blowing smoke. And not compared to someone off the grid, to suburbs and small towns where large numbers of people actually live.

[Haumana]

If you read this Forbes article, "Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change", it makes clear that what I said about ">90% climate scientists" is basically true. The misquote of "97% of ALL scientists" is what was debunked.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2 ... d77b911576
{/quote}

Yeah. No one that I know denies that humans have had an impact on the environment. We have. The question was more pointed towards the question of have humans caused the impending doom to the Earth as we know it. I'm pretty sure that any dominate species has caused a blip in the radar, as far as the Earth is concerned. Now what is the appropriate response? If we are extinct in 12 years, as is the current call, shouldn't a total ban be in order? Or should the soft shoe of only those that can pay be able to play? How much danger is it really?


Denial is just that.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You love to deflect into a personal attack and make random claims without backing them up. You say NYC is "polluting". Show your evidence it's more polluting per capita or you're blowing smoke. And not compared to someone off the grid, to suburbs and small towns where large numbers of people actually live.

I love to deflect? You are so familiar and I didn't even get a reach around. I see your crutch "We are worse than others but individually.... We are better than you" GFY.