twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I disagree with KP a lot but dude is actually super polite.STFU you TROLL you obviously didn't review very much, you fail, and trust me the last thing im trying to do is impress people like you
I disagree with KP a lot but dude is actually super polite.STFU you TROLL you obviously didn't review very much, you fail, and trust me the last thing im trying to do is impress people like you
Stating a fact is "defending Hitler"?I'm not the only one who caught you, three or four other posters picked up on it.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/798502-united-states-one-most-gun-11.html#post10207713
Solar activity is not related to the amount of heat energy hitting the earth.
That young people like yourself are easy to fool?
That should tell you old folks something..
Myself and 98% of the worlds leading scientists?That young people like yourself are easy to fool?
that statement means nothing because i'm hardly old enough to drink a beer and i started this thread!!!!??? so what are you talking about,??What's funny is the only people who deny the science behind climate change and the overwhelming consensus in support of it are older than 40 years old and have little to no basic understanding of how modern science works. Can someone younger than 40 be found who denies climate change is happening?
That should tell you old folks something..
I'm talking about how the vast majority of professionals whose job it is to study the climate agree that human activity is the causethat statement means nothing because i'm hardly old enough to drink a beer and i started this thread!!!!??? so what are you talking about,??
I'm not the only one who caught you, three or four other posters picked up on it.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/798502-united-states-one-most-gun-11.html#post10207713
I'm talking about how the vast majority of professionals whose job it is to study the climate agree that human activity is the cause
You're literally the first person I've ever come across who isn't a bitter old scientifically illiterate numbnuts.
Do you accept the theory of evolution?[/QUOTE
i believe in evolution, but i don't necessarily think humans are a product of that evolution, maybe we are though im just a skeptic
you just cited climatedepot.com, which was started by political scientist marc morano, whose career began working for rush limbaugh, and whose website is funded by political magnate richard scaife, before bemoaning "politically driven scientific bael [SIC]".“The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: “In the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.” If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age.
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. [...] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [...] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Could it be that people over 40 have heard the politically driven scientific babel in the past.
Then no, you don't accept the theory of evolution.. Evolution happens, but not to humans? wut..i believe in evolution, but i don't necessarily think humans are a product of that evolution, maybe we are though im just a skeptic
It doesn't matter who I cited, the articles are all independent. If you don't agree with NASA and the National Academy of Sciences, just say so.you just cited climatedepot.com, which was started by political scientist marc morano, whose career began working for rush limbaugh, and whose website is funded by political magnate richard scaife, before bemoaning "politically driven scientific bael [SIC]".
not only do you love hitler and white supremacy, but you also just self-owned yourself harder than i've ever seen anyone else self-own.
hilarious in its utter douchebaggery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
How can one possibly consider your opinion credible when you can't even spell practiced correctly?Niiiiiiiiiiiice! It's about time people were informed as to how real scientific methods are practised and used and not some consensus based upon speculation...
No. He merely provided background as to who was providing their opinion in the article you referenced. You being defensive about it only shows how weak your argument is.It doesn't matter who I cited, the articles are all independent. If you don't agree with NASA and the National Academy of Sciences, just say so.
Marginalizing my sources won't work on me, that's an old and worn out tactic.
You might want to read before making an ass of yourself, at least you could claim being an informed fool.No. He merely provided background as to who was providing their opinion in the article you referenced. You being defensive about it only shows how weak your argument is.
Good day ma'am.
Remember, Zab Judda got knocked the fucked out.
they're not independent and you owned yourself in a major way.It doesn't matter who I cited, the articles are all independent.