Orangecat
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2020
- 17,550
- 19,317
- 2,288
The contraction of “you are” is “you’re”, not “your”, kiddo.Your blaming me for your own ignorance.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The contraction of “you are” is “you’re”, not “your”, kiddo.Your blaming me for your own ignorance.
You don’t believe in man made global warming because you don’t want to believe in man made global warming.More of you making shit up lol.
Ok, you are getting boring.
I dont believe in it because there isnt any proof. And your so called evidence is cherry picked malarky that ignores natural variability.You don’t believe in man made global warming because you don’t want to believe in man made global warming.
You are certainly not referring to yourself, or a single conservative voice I have seen on this forum.No one denies climate change, odummy.
Intelligent people examine the political narrative and question mankind's role in it.
Think more, emote less.
What you accept as proof depends greatly on the consequences of accepting that proof.I dont believe in it because there isnt any proof. And your so called evidence is cherry picked malarky that ignores natural variability.
Go ahead and gaslight because im right and you cant handle people debunking your religion. IDCWhat you accept as proof depends greatly on the consequences of accepting that proof.
You simply don’t want to deal with consequences.
The alleged rate of change isn't such a big deal when you consider dinosaurs inhabited a glacier free Earth for millions of years. The planet returning to that state is hardly out of the question. Pretending we even understand the 'normal' rate of change is simply hubris and liberal whining.I don’t think 800,000 years is all that recent.
Do you understand they rate of change is actually quite a big deal here?
Stability is mankind's greatest asset.The alleged rate of change isn't such a big deal when you consider dinosaurs inhabited a glacier free Earth for millions of years. The planet returning to that state is hardly out of the question. Pretending we even understand the 'normal' rate of change is simply hubris and liberal whining.
The planet cares nothing about that and will do what it does with or without our input.Stability is mankind's greatest asset.
You really have to have some hubris to think humans can do anything they want and have no consequences.The planet cares nothing about that and will do what it does with or without our input.
Our consequences are always localized, not 'global'. Only the ignorant who can't comprehend scope and scale deny that.You really have to have some hubris to think humans can do anything they want and have no consequences.
Cancer starts off local too.Our consequences are always localized, not 'global'. Only the ignorant who can't comprehend scope and scale deny that.
No we haven't, that claim is absurd.Cancer starts off local too.
We’ve increased global CO2 concentration by 50% in a short time. How’s that for scope and scale?
And how did you determine that?No we haven't, that claim is absurd.
By understanding basic concepts like math.And how did you determine that?
Look at the progress though. A year ago they were denying there was climate change.Next year they will blame biden for not solving it.If you haven’t seen climate change, you’re blind.
Preindustrial CO2 was stable at 280 and now it’s at 420. Use your math and tell me what percent increase that is.By understanding basic concepts like math.
What else has happened in that time-frame? Are they using the same method to measure? Actually, no they aren't, which means the 'data' in comparison isn't reliable, much less accurate.Preindustrial CO2 was stable at 280 and now it’s at 420. Use your math and tell me what percent increase that is.
And you don’t know about recalibration? There are ways to fix problems. Way smarter people than you have been working on this way longer than you.What else has happened in that time-frame? Are they using the same method to measure? Actually, no they aren't, which means the 'data' in comparison isn't reliable, much less accurate.
You claim pre-industrial levels were 'stable' according to what standard? The fact you folks don't question anything at just shows how gullible you are to major hoaxes and fraud.