Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
stew-STR160 said:
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....
Yay! Another one.The master will be most displeased when he reads this.
You can stop your victory dance, troll.
Thanks for clarifying you agree with this common sense stance.
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....
Yay! Another one.The master will be most displeased when he reads this.
You can stop your victory dance, troll.
Break free from the dogma and your past, you can do it. The world will make much more sense if you don’t irrationally believe everyone else is wrong or in on a conspiracy for wealth redistribution.
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....
Yay! Another one.The master will be most displeased when he reads this.
You can stop your victory dance, troll.
Thanks for clarifying you agree with this common sense stance.
Based on apparently no relevant knowledge whatsoever.
It’s like saying ok I agree with the experts but maybe they’re still a bit wrong.
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....
Yay! Another one.The master will be most displeased when he reads this.
You can stop your victory dance, troll.
Thanks for clarifying you agree with this common sense stance.
Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
zygalski said:
stew-STR160 said:
...the rest of us have always maintained there are changes to the climate, and humans may have had some influence, which is yet to be accurately quantified....
Yay! Another one.The master will be most displeased when he reads this.
You can stop your victory dance, troll.
Thanks for clarifying you agree with this common sense stance.
Yes. That is the entire bloody point. How much influence do humans have in the chaotic climate system? YET TO BE DETERMINED.
Wow, you lot are outdoing yourselves.
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
And accept your lords, Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, as our saviours? Get over yourself.
Back to spouting polarised dogma, what a shame, you sounded almost reasonable for a bit there. stew-STR160 said:
Climate change is real. AGW is a made up term to scare people.
Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
So you concede that climate change is real and humans have had some influence but you think anyone that believes in AGW is a sheep that worships Al Gore and Greta?Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Climate change is real. AGW is a made up term to scare people.
Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
So you concede that climate change is real and humans have had some influence but you think anyone that believes in AGW is a sheep that worships Al Gore and Greta?Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Climate change is real. AGW is a made up term to scare people.
Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
So you concede that climate change is real and humans have had some influence but you think anyone that believes in AGW is a sheep that worships Al Gore and Greta?Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
The point is hat you actually believe in AGW, you’re now just arguing about the extent of it.
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Climate change is real. AGW is a made up term to scare people.
Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
So you concede that climate change is real and humans have had some influence but you think anyone that believes in AGW is a sheep that worships Al Gore and Greta?Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
The point is hat you actually believe in AGW, you’re now just arguing about the extent of it.
Are climate change and AGW the same thing?
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Climate change is real. AGW is a made up term to scare people.
Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
So you concede that climate change is real and humans have had some influence but you think anyone that believes in AGW is a sheep that worships Al Gore and Greta?Thanks for clarifying that you're a sheep.
The point is hat you actually believe in AGW, you’re now just arguing about the extent of it.
Are climate change and AGW the same thing?
When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
El stovey said:
No but you’ve clearly said you agree with climate change and that humans are influencing it. Your scientific knowledge has led you to believe that the scientific community and majority of scientists and scientific institutions are wrong about the extent that humans are influencing it, although despite having this evidence you’re unwilling to prove them wrong.
When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
Thanks. When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
My POV is quite clear.
Prove the mainstream wrong? This argument has been done to death and you lot shout anyone down as claiming conspiracy every time.
What percentage are humans causing any climate changes? We don't know. No one does.
The mainstream position and my POV are not as aligned as you're trying to imply.
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
No but you’ve clearly said you agree with climate change and that humans are influencing it. Your scientific knowledge has led you to believe that the scientific community and majority of scientists and scientific institutions are wrong about the extent that humans are influencing it, although despite having this evidence you’re unwilling to prove them wrong.
When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
Thanks. When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
My POV is quite clear.
Prove the mainstream wrong? This argument has been done to death and you lot shout anyone down as claiming conspiracy every time.
What percentage are humans causing any climate changes? We don't know. No one does.
The mainstream position and my POV are not as aligned as you're trying to imply.
You’re saying you don’t have a clue how involved humans are but you know the mainstream position (the scientific consensus) is wrong and anyone that believes this “mainstream position” are sheep? If nobody has a clue how involved humans are, why do you think humans are involved at all?
What evidence have you seen which actually supports human involvement in climate change?
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
No but you’ve clearly said you agree with climate change and that humans are influencing it. Your scientific knowledge has led you to believe that the scientific community and majority of scientists and scientific institutions are wrong about the extent that humans are influencing it, although despite having this evidence you’re unwilling to prove them wrong.
When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
Thanks. When exactly do you think someone that believes in climate change and that humans are involved (you) becomes someone that believes in AGW (a sheep) ? Is it 51% human involvement? What percentage roughly do you think humans are causing climate change if you don’t believe in AGW?
The line dividing you from the sheep (scientific consensus) seems pretty vague and actually close to your position doesn’t it?
My POV is quite clear.
Prove the mainstream wrong? This argument has been done to death and you lot shout anyone down as claiming conspiracy every time.
What percentage are humans causing any climate changes? We don't know. No one does.
The mainstream position and my POV are not as aligned as you're trying to imply.
They have way too much time on their hands, why they waste it in here bickering every day is interesting, almost as if they need to get their daily fix - their daily love-in with each other in order to bolster their faith
I guess that's generally how most religions work.Mind you, with their combined colossal CO2 footprints (which they have boasted about) their internal conflict and guilty consciences must be hard to live with. Ah, that's it! They seek repentance here, if they can convert just a few of us they repent for their CO2 sins?
I think we need a new acronym - AGWW - Anthropogenic Global Warming Witnesses. Let's just pray they don't come knocking on our doors!
We could all be carbon neutral, every nation on earth, and still be wiped out by climate disaster: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5120116...
deeps said:
I wouldn't let them wind you up Stew, that is their intention.
They have way too much time on their hands, why they waste it in here bickering every day is interesting, almost as if they need to get their daily fix - their daily love-in with each other in order to bolster their faith I guess that's generally how most religions work.
Mind you, with their combined colossal CO2 footprints (which they have boasted about) their internal conflict and guilty consciences must be hard to live with. Ah, that's it! They seek repentance here, if they can convert just a few of us they repent for their CO2 sins?
I think we need a new acronym - AGWW - Anthropogenic Global Warming Witnesses. Let's just pray they don't come knocking on our doors!
What a good summary of the usual suspects...They have way too much time on their hands, why they waste it in here bickering every day is interesting, almost as if they need to get their daily fix - their daily love-in with each other in order to bolster their faith
I guess that's generally how most religions work.Mind you, with their combined colossal CO2 footprints (which they have boasted about) their internal conflict and guilty consciences must be hard to live with. Ah, that's it! They seek repentance here, if they can convert just a few of us they repent for their CO2 sins?
I think we need a new acronym - AGWW - Anthropogenic Global Warming Witnesses. Let's just pray they don't come knocking on our doors!
stew-STR160 said:
Thanks.
My POV is quite clear.
It's really not, but it is interesting to see you poke your nose out of the burrow.My POV is quite clear.
stew-STR160 said:
What percentage are humans causing any climate changes? We don't know. No one does.
The mainstream position and my POV are not as aligned as you're trying to imply.
Which means you believe the anthropogenic impact on the climate could be far larger than the science and evidence suggests.The mainstream position and my POV are not as aligned as you're trying to imply.
I don't recall you ever making that case though. Only the opposite. Why is that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff