Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An article from a right wing journalist who is not a scientist. I think Ill take the scientific communities overwheming consensus that there is an increase in global temperatures associated with anthropogenic causes.
Well, you used to know it. Then I showed you that your tabloid article was a lie and now you know better. You can't use ignorance as an excuse any more, so that makes you a liar. And we all know it.
. I think Ill take the scientific communities overwheming consensus that there is an increase in global temperatures associated with anthropogenic causes.
That would be what you hear from left wing journalists who are not scientists.
If you want to argue the point I want you cite specifically references for that figure which is commonly 97%. I don't want links to Wikipedia, I don't want links to some page proclaiming it... I want specific references to where that number comes from and how it was calculated. Keep in mind I'm not asking you to produce something I can't.
That would be what you hear from left wing journalists who are not scientists.
If you want to argue the point I want you cite specifically references for that figure which is commonly 97%. I don't want links to Wikipedia, I don't want links to some page proclaiming it... I want specific references to where that number comes from and how it was calculated. Keep in mind I'm not asking you to produce something I can't.
I'm familiar with it, for starters Anderegg is an environmentalist and that study was done as graduate student under a professor who is well know AGW alarmist.
The question is are you familiar with the study or is that the first thing that popped p in Google? Are you prepared to defend it? I'm not playing post the link game.
Well, you used to know it. Then I showed you that your tabloid article was a lie and now you know better. You can't use ignorance as an excuse any more, so that makes you a liar. And we all know it.
I'm familiar with it, for starters Anderegg is an environmentalist and that study was done as graduate student under a professor who is well know AGW alarmist.
The question is are you familiar with the study or is that the first thing that popped p in Google? Are you prepared to defend it? I'm not playing post the link game.
Nah, first thing that popped up in google.
Would I defend it? probably not, I could defend a 90% number pretty easily I suspect.
Lets think this through though. lets say global warming has a 50% chance of being true. And a 50% chance of being false. I disagree with that, but lets use that for discussion
If we do something we didnt need to, we waste some money
If we do something and we did need to, yay! we save the world
If we dont do anything, and we didnt need to, yay we saved money
if we dont do anything, and we should have, we're in deep deep doo doo.
Yes you have provided the brainless answer of a sheep. It has that much value in reasoned discourse too. What exactly have you contributed other then name calling?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
