Reply With Quote
Darrin or WC.
Same arguments. Different name.
Darrin or WC.
Same arguments. Different name.
Another Fuzzy assessment from the liberal version of Wild Cobra.
Nice of you to offer a hand.
Is this the part where I whine about not talking to you and mind your own business?
Maybe you can get KW to like your post here or something but most people just don't give a about your weak ass attempts at insulting. if you're going to make vague attempts at a dig like that you at least need to come up with some sort of explanation. For example there is evidence of you being fat, fatties.
Both Darren and wc have been making these lukewarm agreements with climate science lately but then advocating for no action. The only thing missing is ling those that want action as alarmist. It is what it is
Until we collectively have to pay the price for their inaction and ed conspiracy theories being translated into policy.
"externalities"
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eaths-research
Scientists have established links between pervasive air pollution from burning fossil fuels and cases of heart disease, respiratory ailments and even the loss of eyesight. Without fossil fuel emissions, the average life expectancy of the world’s population would increase by more than a year, while global economic and health costs would fall by about $2.9tn.
Climate change exists, and we are the primary driver. That is what the science says.
The solution is to simply burn less fossil fuels, and stop deforestation.
It isn't hard, nor really driven by any ideology other than self-preservation.
How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?
You first
Pretty damn hard. They would fund all sorts of shills, front groups, white papers, and push narratives through proxies, and paid-for politicians.
Your turn.
How hard do you think a trillion dollar industry would work to discredit valid, good science that showed its product was harmful?
I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I was saying "you use less fossil fuels" first. Also, stop using paper and wood products.
ah. gotcha.
You dodged the question entirely for a lazy jab, instead of looking for any kind of discussion.
I gave you too much credit.
my bad. I should have known better.
Not a lazy jab. If you want change, change. Talk about what you're going to do differently and stop pretending you're a remote viewer.
"my two word post was NOT lazy".
More laziness, mixed in with flawed thinking.
Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric?
An ad hominem argument in which the accused becomes the accuser
"The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to avoid taking the other's position seriously.
If we were having a formal debate then sure, you could accuse me of using that logical fallacy but in this thread, you suggested the world change something and yet you have likely not done so yourself."my two word post was NOT lazy".
More laziness, mixed in with flawed thinking.
Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.
So what position do you hold that I should take seriously? That others should change but not you?
You do you, boo. Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.
That's real grown of you.
You do you, boo. Keep up the stupid thinking, stupid mother er.
<Randomguy shrugs>
It is actually more grown than repeatedly using failed reasoning, even when that failure has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. That is down right childish.
C'est va?
What is funny to me though, is that the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bull , and failed reasoning on the part of people who want to take the policy position that we should not do anything about climate change because it either isn't real or would have some unbearable burden on the economy.
Neither of those things is, in fact, true.
The only way you can support those beliefs is with failures of reasoning.
Every time your childish ass refuses to evaluate your own thinking, you prove my point.
Suck it.
Your dipole moment passed years ago
Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.
Talk more about pseudoscientific bull .
Creeping toward Permanent DroughtWe only have 12 years left tho.
Both trees and climate models are telling us the same frightening story
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...manent-drought
You.
ing.
science-denying.
moron.
Told you a decade ago that the data would ac ulate each year, and it has.
The CO2 we have emitted in massive quanities has started having profound effects, and there is some concern that those effects will be self-sustaining.
Going from an tu cocque to a false equivalence.
Do they both let their sky-daddy beliefs guide their policy equally?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
