0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
which would be uncomfortable for anyone who preaches that glacier retreat is a recent phenomenon.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 07:42:06Nope that is very ambiguousIf you think that's ambiguous, then I don't know what else to tell you.Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 07:42:06and diversive.How? https://www.badasstoysforbadassboys.com/diversive.html
Nope that is very ambiguous
What exactly, from your moral
and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 20:37:13What exactly, from your moralI don't see what morality has to do with it.Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 20:37:13and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?I also don't know what imperviousness has to do with it. Nothing about science is "impervious". Science is always amenable to change when new evidence is uncovered.My point is that it is unlikely that 97% of experts in a given field would be in denial about evidence that they are aware of. That might be plausible if you were saying that only a handful were in denial, but almost all? Highly improbable.
You seem to be attacking the question rather than answering it again. Very devicive.
Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?
You're aware that climate change data goes back well over a decade, aren't you?
Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Go on have, another go Kryptid.
Much as I have enjoyed disagreeing with puppypower over the years, we concur on this: it is very dangerous to draw a line through one point,
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/05/2021 05:55:21Go on have, another go Kryptid.If you couldn't parse the content of my sentences before, I don't know why I should try.