0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 10:55:18Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 09:13:44Quote from: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 04:19:59You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument. So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 09:13:44Quote from: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 04:19:59You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument. So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?
Quote from: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 04:19:59You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.
Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.
These reading s has been added to the modern average. This is a way to game the system. You scan the earth for high points and plant there.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 12:01:25Quote from: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 10:55:18Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 09:13:44Quote from: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 04:19:59You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument. So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger? Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.
Either that or they are in denial once again,
Quote from: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 13:01:20Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 12:01:25Quote from: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 10:55:18Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 09:13:44Quote from: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 04:19:59You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument. So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger? Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though. Mahhhhh, I am rubber though.
Yes, looking at what you post, I rather suspect that you are.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 09:13:44Either that or they are in denial once again,Yes, the majority of those educated in science who acquire and analyze the evidence firsthand, worldwide, are in denial. Right...
But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 05:39:24But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science.You won't be hearing me say that, fortunately. It's actually an excellent example of science: the ability to change position once better evidence is brought in. If there is significant evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, that roughly 97% consensus of climate scientists apparently haven't found it yet. It's not like one can blame it on some kind of political agenda either, as climate scientists worldwide are in consensus on it. If it was politically-motivated, you'd expect climate scientists in different countries to be in broad disagreement with each other because politics is varied across the planet.
97% of the world's climate scientists are in denial? Really? To suggest that some subgroup of scientists are in denial would be one thing, but to say that climate scientists, internationally, with different cultural backgrounds overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion about climate change because of confirmation bias or denial stretches credibility. The data is there. The Earth has steadily been getting warmer since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Rather ambiguous and egotistical
What Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 15:27:56Rather ambiguous and egotisticalWhat Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".
Quote from: Origin on 09/05/2021 17:55:08Quote from: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 15:27:56Rather ambiguous and egotisticalWhat Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".Egotistical, vain and biased
Egotistical, vain and biased
You claim that those words apply to someone for stating that climate scientist think man made global warming is real? You really don't know what those words mean.
Is it egotistical to say that the majority of biologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that evolution happens? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of astronomers are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the closest star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of geologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the Earth is billions of years old? If not, why is it suddenly egotistical when it comes to climate scientists having a consensus about climate change?I can tell you what actually is egotistical: armchair researchers thinking they know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
Nope that is very ambiguous
and diversive.