21
   

Science Deniers are Everywhere

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 03:33 pm
@ehBeth,
once again teenvogue turns out to be a solid source with a resource piece with good backing links

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/trump-withdraws-us-from-paris-agreement-heres-what-it-means


Quote:
As for what this means internationally, international leaders have made it clear that the world will tackle climate change with or without the United States. The EU and China have reportedly formed an alliance to combat any measure taken by the U.S. that could undermine the Paris Agreement and other nations have renewed their commitment to battling climate change. And, according to UN secretary general António Guterres, the power to make a difference still remains with the people and local governments in America.

"We believe that it will be important for the U.S. not to leave the Paris Agreement," Guterres said Tuesday in a Q&A session after delivering a speech at New York University’s Stern School of Business, prior to Trump's decision. "But even if (the) U.S. government decides to leave the Paris Agreement, it's very important for the U.S. societies as a whole — for the cities, the states, the companies, the businesses — to remain engaged with the Paris Agreement."

The U.S. may be backing out of its environmental promise outlined in the Paris Agreement, but there's hope yet that lawmakers and citizen activism can make lasting progress at halting climate change.


California/Massachusetts/New York/PIttsburgh already on record as not following Mr. Trump's lead on this

Elon Musk has now quit two Trump committees he was on
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 03:41 pm
Quote:
Elon Musk has now quit two Trump committees he was on


Who cares what Elon Musk does. I never liked the guy, he's an idiot. Makes ugly, useless cars too. Doesn't he like to visit park bathrooms?

There, now McGentrix, Baldimo, layman, giujohn, ... don't have to reply to this.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 03:43 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Why can't you check for yourself?

I'm not the one touting the 97% claim; you are. If you don't know, then just say so.

I never mentioned any such figure. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 04:13 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Thanks. I'm just curious to see if Olivier understands what he's talking about.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/


I'm not sure about that but he sure knows what he knows!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 05:41 pm
@Olivier5,
I think Glenn is in e-on-set Alzheimers
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 05:53 pm
@farmerman,
You have a personality problem. I think you rely on juvenile-style ridicule when you have no answers.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 06:06 pm
@Glennn,
I only present answers to what I consider to be reasonable , well-thought-out questions. You dont measure up kid. Your mind is made up without allowing any room to learn (non-alternative) facts
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 06:45 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I only present answers to what I consider to be reasonable , well-thought-out questions.

Of course you do. So, how was it determined that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is caused by Co2 emissions? I mean, how many scientists were asked, and who asked them? Come on, kid, give it a shot.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 06:59 pm
@Glennn,
2. I only try to answer questions in which I have some interest, so , with all due respect, I suggest you find someone who gives a ****
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 07:02 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I only try to answer questions in which I have some interest, so , with all due respect

TRANSLATION: I don't like the answer, and so I'm not going to give it because my mind is made up without allowing any room to learn (non-alternative) facts.

I understand completely . . .
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 07:08 pm
@Glennn,
You do?? You dont provide any information that supports such an assertion.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 07:09 pm
@Glennn,
remember, I said that you should go and seek out someone who gives a **** about your incoherent ramblings(including someone who has a clinical interest)
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 07:10 pm
@farmerman,
You're stalling, kid. Just answer the question. After all, what's the worst that could happen?

So, how was it determined that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is caused by Co2 emissions? I mean, how many scientists were asked, and who asked them?

You are the one who was touting the 97% scientific consensus claim. I'm just asking you to explain your claim. Surely you don't mind some feedback to statements you make. Right?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 07:28 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Many of us stated that the beams Could easily bend because it never took a melt temperature to induce deformation.

Yeah, and many of us asked you why you insist that the core structure below the impact zone was heated to the point of deformation when it obviously was not.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 08:02 pm
@farmerman,
Another famous farmerman lie. Which he always uses when he is up a stump. He keeps telling everyone how rock solid his "science" is, but he is afraid to provide it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 09:41 pm
@Glennn,
I 'm sure I will be overwhelmed with crap science attempting to make your evidence -free obsession.
Jever notice how Steve Jones keeps appearing as the main author of the line of crap? He keeps reinventing himself an producing more self published junk in which he cites himself and thus produces an ever growing pile of junk science literature.
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 09:48 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Jever notice how Steve Jones keeps appearing as the main author of the line of crap? He keeps reinventing himself an producing more self published junk in which he cites himself and thus produces an ever growing pile of junk science literature.


No, I haven't noticed that, not at all, not in the least.

Perhaps using the same astounding level of science you have illustrated above and working off your brilliant performances in The Physics of 911 thread, you could show everybody what your rant, above, means.

Use spell check so it's legible.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 09:50 pm
@farmerman,
Actually, I'm noticing that you're failing to answer the question of how it was determined that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is caused by Co2 emissions? Ya know, like how many scientists were asked, and who asked them.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 09:54 pm
Quote:
farmerman: Many of us stated that the beams Could easily bend because it never took a melt temperature to induce deformation.


Who are these anonymous "many of us"? That is so unscientific.

Deformation, yes, that is possible.

Collapse, no, it has never happened ever before or since. It never happened in the Cardington test fires where extra office fuel loads were added. It never happened in the Windsor Tower where the entire building was engulfed in flames, for close to a day.



0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  4  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2017 09:57 pm
@Glennn,
77 were asked. 75 believed in man-made global warming.

Google "97 percent of climate scientists" and visit politifact.

Took me 3 minutes to find the source of the stat.
 

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 11:54:24