Reply With Quote
besides not addressing the point, your position squarely falls on political dogma. You've not made a single scientific claim for or against climate change in this thread, yet made your allegedly informed opinion on the matter clear.
Maybe we need more Mexican illegals?
You know, the guy with the thing.
Which standard do you want to use?
Eh? EH? Someone here is using that noggin for something besides a walnut cracker.
Why should they? Burgers are good.
I'm helping fight climate change by eating burgers, as it prevents an overpopulation of cows from farting... Just doing my part...
Fox News Host Slams Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez For Raising Her Office’s Starting Salary
Pete Hegseth called it “socialism and communism on display.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-...gEmail__022519
Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change
I'm not a huge AOC fan but that's out of context.
Money is the total arbiter of American life. Not having children is financial decision.
Children are "expenditures" deducting from buying, doing all my .
It cost money to feed and take care of your kids
Your tax deductions do not offset that
Kids make you buy bigger houses and cars
hey, if you're sick of the kids, send them to bob kraft.
welcome to spurstalk conservatism
you started by noting he was "a bit of a maverick"
that is because he championed heliocentrism (from the scientific method) directly in the face of religious dogma (a time where the church claimed that to be heresy)
It should also be stressed that unlike Giordano Bruno, Galileo backed down and recanted in the face of excommunication.
(It's to his credit that he did, IMHO. Galileo's subsequent work was unquestionably of more value to science than he would have been as a martyr. Flexibility is underrated.)
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#4b227cc3f9ff
Debunked 4 years ago.
the whole "97% of scientists agree" imo is a poor talking point.
a) it doesn't matter what scientists "agree" with. science isn't determined by a poll of scientists
b) a scientists personal opinions dont matter. any scientist can go on a TV interview and say whatever they think, or write a book and write whatever they think. the only thing that matters is their published research. that goes beyond just their opinion, as they must back all claims with evidence and their methods/calculations are subject to rigorous peer review
c) however, with respect to the consensus issue, the more accurate source of the 97% or 99% figure or whatever figure you find is actually derived from looking through all research that has been published and evaluating what percentage of published papers are consistent with the carbon dioxide theory of climate change vs how many are inconsistent with that position. so it would be more accurate to state that 97% of all published research is consistent with anthropogenic climate change theory
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../4/048002/meta
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
example,
who gives a if bill nye believes in climate change? he's a mechanical engineer with no expertise in "climate science"... climate science is an umbrella term and would include people of all sorts of disciplines, including climatology, paleoclimatology, atmospheric physics, oceanography, volcanology, geology, glaciology, hydrology, etc
Who is Gob?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
