What's the point of discussing if the person you're discussing with has a closed mind?youngterrier wrote:We need more zealots, what's the point of arguing if you aren't sure of your position89Hen wrote: anyone who disagrees with you.
you're jealous of my eloquenceJoltinJoe wrote::blah: terrier wrote:
JoltinJoe wrote:D1B wrote:Nice work,YT.
They're the ones with the unhealthy lust for prepubescent boys.
- no, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.youngterrier wrote: -you're implying it.
- that number is SIGNIFICANT in unsettling the balance, especially since we cut down trees that help balance out the equation. The fact is that it's building up in the atmosphere, and we're continuing to burn.
-"Most reasonable scientists?" dude 99% of the scientists say humans are a factor, is your definition of "reasonable scientists" someone who agrees with you.
-No one said that, you just fail to produce an adequate alternative explanation for the spike in temperatures, other than saying "it's natural"
(see below)
.25 of 1%? You do realize that your own numbers say 2%-5% of carbon emissions are man-made. That's significant. The fact that you think elevated CO2 levels are an effect of global warming is fucking laughable, especially when we know that we are contributing significantly to the input. You draw a false comparison between methods of architecture and physics. We know physics and architecture, but putting the pyramids in context with the technology of the time is hard. The laws of physics on the other hand stays the same. Mars is funny, because I'm pretty sure I've heard an explanation for that and you need to stop saying that I or any climate scientist think that the sole reason for any planet warming up period is human activity because it makes you look quite foolish.Baldy wrote:- no, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.youngterrier wrote: -you're implying it.
- that number is SIGNIFICANT in unsettling the balance, especially since we cut down trees that help balance out the equation. The fact is that it's building up in the atmosphere, and we're continuing to burn.
-"Most reasonable scientists?" dude 99% of the scientists say humans are a factor, is your definition of "reasonable scientists" someone who agrees with you.
-No one said that, you just fail to produce an adequate alternative explanation for the spike in temperatures, other than saying "it's natural"
- .25 of 1% is significant?
- no, I said reasonable scientist can't agree if elevated CO2 levels are a reason for global warming or the effect OF global warming.
- adequate alternative explanation? dude, there isn't even a "consensus" for an explanation on how the Egyptians built the pyramids, and those are things we can see, feel, touch, measure, etc. I'm still waiting for one of these so-called "climate scientists" to adequately explain to me why the ice caps on Mars are melting, because the last time I checked there weren't any humans or SUV's running around on that planet.
As I said before, human activity on this planet accounts for .25 to .30 of 1% of the greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere. That is such an infantecimal amount, but it's significant in unsettling the balance? If the AGW data is that strong and that precise and accurate then they should certainly be able to tell us the exact levels of greenhouse gasses humans can pump into the atmosphere so the climate can get into balance again.
Let's just install giant carbon scrubbers scrubbers in the sky.youngterrier wrote:Either way, the way you counteract it is by somehow taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and the only means we have of doing that is via plant life because we don't have the technology. We really can't stop the process unless we actually reduce carbon emissions.
WOW...just WOWyoungterrier wrote:.25 of 1%? You do realize that your own numbers say 2%-5% of carbon emissions are man-made. That's significant. The fact that you think elevated CO2 levels are an effect of global warming is fucking laughable, especially when we know that we are contributing significantly to the input. You draw a false comparison between methods of architecture and physics. We know physics and architecture, but putting the pyramids in context with the technology of the time is hard. The laws of physics on the other hand stays the same. Mars is funny, because I'm pretty sure I've heard an explanation for that and you need to stop saying that I or any climate scientist think that the sole reason for any planet warming up period is human activity because it makes you look quite foolish.Baldy wrote: - no, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
- .25 of 1% is significant?
- no, I said reasonable scientist can't agree if elevated CO2 levels are a reason for global warming or the effect OF global warming.
- adequate alternative explanation? dude, there isn't even a "consensus" for an explanation on how the Egyptians built the pyramids, and those are things we can see, feel, touch, measure, etc. I'm still waiting for one of these so-called "climate scientists" to adequately explain to me why the ice caps on Mars are melting, because the last time I checked there weren't any humans or SUV's running around on that planet.
As I said before, human activity on this planet accounts for .25 to .30 of 1% of the greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere. That is such an infantecimal amount, but it's significant in unsettling the balance? If the AGW data is that strong and that precise and accurate then they should certainly be able to tell us the exact levels of greenhouse gasses humans can pump into the atmosphere so the climate can get into balance again.
OH MY GOD THAT LAST PARAGRAPH REFLECTS YOUR RETARDATION.
As I already explained, the problem isn't just that we're pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, it's the fact that we're unsettling a balance and it's leading towards a climate that favors a greenhouse effect. Your original stats were 2.5%-% but you keep changing them so I'm actually going to ask for a source so you stop changing it. Either way, .25% year is still significant, especially when we've been doing it for decades and depleting whole percentages of the photosynthesizers that would counteract the effect. It leads to accumulation If we wanted to counteract the effect, we would actually have to plant more trees, but instead we're depleting them. this leads to more CO2, thus more greenhouses, and thus more warmth.
But that last sentence is the motherfucking sinker in exemplifying that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. You don't pump gases into the atmosphere to counteract carbon emissions. Pumping gases into the atmosphere is the problem. Further, if for some deluded reason we decided to do something like that (which we wouldn't) the VERY LAST kind of gas we would use would be greenhouse gases!!!!!!!!! Those are the problems in the first place. The only way we could counteract the greenhouse effect and carbon emissions is either by planting a hell of a lot more trees, reducing carbon emission inputs, or both (both is preferable). Either way, the way you counteract it is by somehow taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and the only means we have of doing that is via plant life because we don't have the technology. We really can't stop the process unless we actually reduce carbon emissions.
Do you not read the actual science behind this stuff? Obviously not.
I can deal with people who don't believe in or understand global warming, and I can deal with people willing to argue against it, but I can't stand people who argue against it and don't even know the science behind it
Baldy wrote:WOW...just WOW
I gave you two sets of numbers, kid, but you're too busy being a little immature emotional wreck and getting them confused.
I said human activity only produces 2.0% - 5.25% of all CO2 emissions, and .25% to .30% of ALL GREENHOUSE gasses annually. Let me teach you another thing...CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, but not all greenhouse gasses are CO2.
Calm down...take a deep breath...and quit being so emotional.
OH MY GOD!!!Baldy wrote:WOW...just WOWyoungterrier wrote:OH MY GOD THAT LAST PARAGRAPH REFLECTS YOUR RETARDATION.
I gave you two sets of numbers, kid, but you're too busy being a little immature emotional wreck and getting them confused.
I said human activity only produces 2.0% - 5.25% of all CO2 emissions, and .25% to .30% of ALL GREENHOUSE gasses annually. Let me teach you another thing...CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, but not all greenhouse gasses are CO2.
Calm down...take a deep breath...and quit being so emotional.
oh, go fuck yourselfBaldy wrote:WOW...just WOWyoungterrier wrote: .25 of 1%? You do realize that your own numbers say 2%-5% of carbon emissions are man-made. That's significant. The fact that you think elevated CO2 levels are an effect of global warming is fucking laughable, especially when we know that we are contributing significantly to the input. You draw a false comparison between methods of architecture and physics. We know physics and architecture, but putting the pyramids in context with the technology of the time is hard. The laws of physics on the other hand stays the same. Mars is funny, because I'm pretty sure I've heard an explanation for that and you need to stop saying that I or any climate scientist think that the sole reason for any planet warming up period is human activity because it makes you look quite foolish.
OH MY GOD THAT LAST PARAGRAPH REFLECTS YOUR RETARDATION.
As I already explained, the problem isn't just that we're pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, it's the fact that we're unsettling a balance and it's leading towards a climate that favors a greenhouse effect. Your original stats were 2.5%-% but you keep changing them so I'm actually going to ask for a source so you stop changing it. Either way, .25% year is still significant, especially when we've been doing it for decades and depleting whole percentages of the photosynthesizers that would counteract the effect. It leads to accumulation If we wanted to counteract the effect, we would actually have to plant more trees, but instead we're depleting them. this leads to more CO2, thus more greenhouses, and thus more warmth.
But that last sentence is the motherfucking sinker in exemplifying that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. You don't pump gases into the atmosphere to counteract carbon emissions. Pumping gases into the atmosphere is the problem. Further, if for some deluded reason we decided to do something like that (which we wouldn't) the VERY LAST kind of gas we would use would be greenhouse gases!!!!!!!!! Those are the problems in the first place. The only way we could counteract the greenhouse effect and carbon emissions is either by planting a hell of a lot more trees, reducing carbon emission inputs, or both (both is preferable). Either way, the way you counteract it is by somehow taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and the only means we have of doing that is via plant life because we don't have the technology. We really can't stop the process unless we actually reduce carbon emissions.
Do you not read the actual science behind this stuff? Obviously not.
I can deal with people who don't believe in or understand global warming, and I can deal with people willing to argue against it, but I can't stand people who argue against it and don't even know the science behind it
I gave you two sets of numbers, kid, but you're too busy being a little immature emotional wreck and getting them confused.
I said human activity only produces 2.0% - 5.25% of all CO2 emissions, and .25% to .30% of ALL GREENHOUSE gasses annually. Let me teach you another thing...CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, but not all greenhouse gasses are CO2.
Calm down...take a deep breath...and quit being so emotional.
if the best you have is that number, and you clearly don't even understand the significance of that number (heck I even granted you that number for the sake of argument if you would notice).yt, unhinged.youngterrier wrote:oh, go fuck yourself
Says the guy who got those numbers crissed crossed in the first place.if the best you have is that number, and you clearly don't even understand the significance of that number (heck I even granted you that number for the sake of argument if you would notice).
As I have proven to you, what you say doesn't pass the common sense smell test. AGAIN, all human activity accounts for (roughly) 0.25% of all the greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere annually. To put it into perspective, a $100.00 dollar bill (400 quarters) represents all of the greenhouse gasses emitted annually, the human factor constitutes $0.25 (1 quarter) of that $100.00 dollar pile of quarters. Now you're trying to tell me that climate science is so precise that it can pinpoint the tipping point of AGW to that tiny little shiny quarter the nasty little human put on that pile of 400 quarters???????? BULLSHIT.It doesn't change the fact that the number of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 41% ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution
OR the fact that CO2 is the second most powerful greenhouse gas
http://helloworldbea.wordpress.com/2008 ... use-gases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or the fact that increases in temperatures can lead to glaciers melting, leading to more water in the ocean, leading to more water vapor evaporating, leading to more greenhouse effect because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
You have done nothing other than say 2 numbers, and you have yet to showcase their significance or your understanding of their significance. At the same time, you've done absolutely nothing refute what I've said, and what I have said is quite important.
Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. Didn't say it was "no biggie", just pointing out to you that one quarter in a pile of 400 quarters is no biggie.So please, enlighten me how increasing the number of the second most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by 41% is "no biggie"
Dude, you don't care one bit about a scientific and educational conversation. Your fuck you and your retardation comments made that perfectly clear. You are only interested in shouting down the other person because they don't agree with your point of view...standard operating procedure in the climate alarmist world.I'm waiting on an actual scientific and educational conversation of which you propose an adequate alternative to the AGW hypothesis. I'll give you a hint: saying anything "happens naturally" does not qualify as an argument because its redundant and lacks explanatory power
Less than $0.25% of scientists agree with you.Baldy wrote:yt, unhinged.youngterrier wrote:oh, go fuck yourself
Says the guy who got those numbers crissed crossed in the first place.if the best you have is that number, and you clearly don't even understand the significance of that number (heck I even granted you that number for the sake of argument if you would notice).
Believe me, I understand the insignificance of those numbers better than you ever will.
As I have proven to you, what you say doesn't pass the common sense smell test. AGAIN, all human activity accounts for (roughly) 0.25% of all the greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere annually. To put it into perspective, a $100.00 dollar bill (400 quarters) represents all of the greenhouse gasses emitted annually, the human factor constitutes $0.25 (1 quarter) of that $100.00 dollar pile of quarters. Now you're trying to tell me that climate science is so precise that it can pinpoint the tipping point of AGW to that tiny little shiny quarter the nasty little human put on that pile of 400 quarters???????? BULLSHIT.It doesn't change the fact that the number of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 41% ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution
OR the fact that CO2 is the second most powerful greenhouse gas
http://helloworldbea.wordpress.com/2008 ... use-gases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or the fact that increases in temperatures can lead to glaciers melting, leading to more water in the ocean, leading to more water vapor evaporating, leading to more greenhouse effect because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
You have done nothing other than say 2 numbers, and you have yet to showcase their significance or your understanding of their significance. At the same time, you've done absolutely nothing refute what I've said, and what I have said is quite important.
Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. Didn't say it was "no biggie", just pointing out to you that one quarter in a pile of 400 quarters is no biggie.So please, enlighten me how increasing the number of the second most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by 41% is "no biggie"
Here is some more common sense for you. The climate alarmists say that the earths temperature has risen X number of degrees over the past 150 years or so. 150 years ago temperatures were measured by rudimentary thermometers in weather stations all around the globe. Today they are measured by satellites in outer space. Those are two extremely different ways to measure the same information. When you try to compare the same data from two infinitely different sources, there has to be a pretty liberal margin of error included. Why do the climate scientists not include that margin of error in their data? Because the margin of error is much greater than the actual temperature increase they are reporting. Again, more BULLSHIT!!!!
Dude, you don't care one bit about a scientific and educational conversation. Your fuck you and your retardation comments made that perfectly clear. You are only interested in shouting down the other person because they don't agree with your point of view...standard operating procedure in the climate alarmist world.I'm waiting on an actual scientific and educational conversation of which you propose an adequate alternative to the AGW hypothesis. I'll give you a hint: saying anything "happens naturally" does not qualify as an argument because its redundant and lacks explanatory power
From reading all of the posts, I believe it is scientifically proven that queefs generage 0.25% of all greenhouse gases.Ibanez wrote:How do vaginas play into this?
So what you are saying is, you think there is enough genetic differences between, say, the French and Caucasian Americans that could account for the fact that they have lower incidence of heart disease with more saturated fats in their diets? And genetic factors always create variability as you say, but overall physiology is the same across all people and is understood in a way comparable to what is known about atmospheric physics.youngterrier wrote:
You've brought up lot of points but at the same time you've exposed your idiocy.
We know a lot more about physics, at least in terms of how climate and molecules work, because we can test how molecules, gases, etc interact with each other in a lab setting. I mean really, your post shows a complete ignorance of our understanding of physics at the molecular level. One thing we do know for sure is that we know a lot more about physics than we do molecular and genetic biology, because physics stuff is easily tested, whereas the genome of the human body, though mapped, has enough information in it to to where it will take a very long time to know what genes or combination of genes will do exactly what function in the human body.
Physics doesn't really have that discrepancy, at least on the atomic level because there isn't a molecule of which we study the interactions with that are millions and millions and millions in parts. We know how the atmosphere works because the simplicity of it with it's Nitrogen, oxygen, etc makeup. We know that it doesn't matter if it's 10 atoms of oxygen interacting with 10 atoms of element x, or a thousand atoms of oxygen interacting with a thousand atoms of element x, it's going to act in the same way, except amplified by 100 because of the amount of atoms involved. Contrast that with our understanding of genetics and biology when literally there are millions or billions of factors and variables contributing to the body, whether it be genetic or otherwise, and it is MUCH simpler and clearer to draw a distinction.
I also think you're selling scientist short in terms of what we know about past climate, but I haven't done enough research on said topic so I won't acknowledge that point.
Actually, it's not insane at all. Insects ALONE produce more CO2 than all human activities combined. If CO2 from respiration is really so negligible, then why do the global warming chicken littles make such a hullabaloo over cows and just ignore aerobic life forms that have biomass that are many millions of times larger than cows?youngterrier wrote: I'm open to the idea that the number of carbon emissions are naturally increasing with more aerobic respirating life forms, however you'll be hard press for me to believe that the increase is that of which matches 2% to 5% of emissions we produce artificially per year. That's insane.
So, about the same amount who agreed with Copernicus back in the day, too.kalm wrote: Less than $0.25% of scientists agree with you.
You' consistently think that the issue is simply an accumulation problem alone. You haven't invalidated a thing I've said, the only thing you've said is you compared it to money, when a more accurate comparison is that of the weight balance. Your flat earth understanding of how the world works makes you feel like that is insignificant. So is one atom of antimatter insignificant in terms of explosive power? I mean the fact that you think the amount of emissions or gases released isn't significant because it isn't a hulking majority showcases your ignorance.Baldy wrote:yt, unhinged.youngterrier wrote:oh, go fuck yourself
Says the guy who got those numbers crissed crossed in the first place.if the best you have is that number, and you clearly don't even understand the significance of that number (heck I even granted you that number for the sake of argument if you would notice).
Believe me, I understand the insignificance of those numbers better than you ever will.
As I have proven to you, what you say doesn't pass the common sense smell test. AGAIN, all human activity accounts for (roughly) 0.25% of all the greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere annually. To put it into perspective, a $100.00 dollar bill (400 quarters) represents all of the greenhouse gasses emitted annually, the human factor constitutes $0.25 (1 quarter) of that $100.00 dollar pile of quarters. Now you're trying to tell me that climate science is so precise that it can pinpoint the tipping point of AGW to that tiny little shiny quarter the nasty little human put on that pile of 400 quarters???????? BULLSHIT.It doesn't change the fact that the number of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 41% ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution
OR the fact that CO2 is the second most powerful greenhouse gas
http://helloworldbea.wordpress.com/2008 ... use-gases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or the fact that increases in temperatures can lead to glaciers melting, leading to more water in the ocean, leading to more water vapor evaporating, leading to more greenhouse effect because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
You have done nothing other than say 2 numbers, and you have yet to showcase their significance or your understanding of their significance. At the same time, you've done absolutely nothing refute what I've said, and what I have said is quite important.
Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. Didn't say it was "no biggie", just pointing out to you that one quarter in a pile of 400 quarters is no biggie.So please, enlighten me how increasing the number of the second most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by 41% is "no biggie"
Here is some more common sense for you. The climate alarmists say that the earths temperature has risen X number of degrees over the past 150 years or so. 150 years ago temperatures were measured by rudimentary thermometers in weather stations all around the globe. Today they are measured by satellites in outer space. Those are two extremely different ways to measure the same information. When you try to compare the same data from two infinitely different sources, there has to be a pretty liberal margin of error included. Why do the climate scientists not include that margin of error in their data? Because the margin of error is much greater than the actual temperature increase they are reporting. Again, more BULLSHIT!!!!
Dude, you don't care one bit about a scientific and educational conversation. Your fuck you and your retardation comments made that perfectly clear. You are only interested in shouting down the other person because they don't agree with your point of view...standard operating procedure in the climate alarmist world.I'm waiting on an actual scientific and educational conversation of which you propose an adequate alternative to the AGW hypothesis. I'll give you a hint: saying anything "happens naturally" does not qualify as an argument because its redundant and lacks explanatory power
You misunderstood what I was getting at with the genetics and stuff. saturated fats and heart disease stuff has way too many factors playing into it, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, etc all of which are different for different people, so outside of general claims about how people generally live their life in contrast in the two countries, you're not going to get a precise answer, let alone a scientific one unless you're evaluating on a case by case basis.Pwns wrote:So what you are saying is, you think there is enough genetic differences between, say, the French and Caucasian Americans that could account for the fact that they have lower incidence of heart disease with more saturated fats in their diets? And genetic factors always create variability as you say, but overall physiology is the same across all people and is understood in a way comparable to what is known about atmospheric physics.youngterrier wrote:
You've brought up lot of points but at the same time you've exposed your idiocy.
We know a lot more about physics, at least in terms of how climate and molecules work, because we can test how molecules, gases, etc interact with each other in a lab setting. I mean really, your post shows a complete ignorance of our understanding of physics at the molecular level. One thing we do know for sure is that we know a lot more about physics than we do molecular and genetic biology, because physics stuff is easily tested, whereas the genome of the human body, though mapped, has enough information in it to to where it will take a very long time to know what genes or combination of genes will do exactly what function in the human body.
Physics doesn't really have that discrepancy, at least on the atomic level because there isn't a molecule of which we study the interactions with that are millions and millions and millions in parts. We know how the atmosphere works because the simplicity of it with it's Nitrogen, oxygen, etc makeup. We know that it doesn't matter if it's 10 atoms of oxygen interacting with 10 atoms of element x, or a thousand atoms of oxygen interacting with a thousand atoms of element x, it's going to act in the same way, except amplified by 100 because of the amount of atoms involved. Contrast that with our understanding of genetics and biology when literally there are millions or billions of factors and variables contributing to the body, whether it be genetic or otherwise, and it is MUCH simpler and clearer to draw a distinction.
I also think you're selling scientist short in terms of what we know about past climate, but I haven't done enough research on said topic so I won't acknowledge that point.
And you didn't answer my question...how can one be sure burning fossil fuels is causing climate change when climate change itself is not understood at all? No one can explain the ice ages and the global cooling at the end of the mesozoic or the ice ages, ergo climate science is SOFT science.
Why do you complain the comparison to health sciences research isn't valid because genetics isn't understood but give a pass to climate science for not understanding past climate changes?
Actually, it's not insane at all. Insects ALONE produce more CO2 than all human activities combined. If CO2 from respiration is really so negligible, then why do the global warming chicken littles make such a hullabaloo over cows and just ignore aerobic life forms that have biomass that are many millions of times larger than cows?youngterrier wrote: I'm open to the idea that the number of carbon emissions are naturally increasing with more aerobic respirating life forms, however you'll be hard press for me to believe that the increase is that of which matches 2% to 5% of emissions we produce artificially per year. That's insane.
Here's where you lost him.Baldy wrote:As I have proven to you, what you say doesn't pass the common sense smell test.
You know you people keep using flat earth appeals, but not necessarily scientific ones. Science is counter-intuitive by nature. And the amount of scientific explanation as to how things are happening in this thread is impoverished outside of what I'm adding.AZGrizFan wrote:Here's where you lost him.Baldy wrote:As I have proven to you, what you say doesn't pass the common sense smell test.
Cow farts.youngterrier wrote:You know you people keep using flat earth appeals, but not necessarily scientific ones. Science is counter-intuitive by nature. And the amount of scientific explanation as to how things are happening in this thread is impoverished outside of what I'm adding.AZGrizFan wrote:
Here's where you lost him.
Everyone is stating carbon emission data, but they don't seem to understand the significance.
I'm still waiting for an alternative hypothesis
$$$$$$$$$youngterrier wrote:You know you people keep using flat earth appeals, but not necessarily scientific ones. Science is counter-intuitive by nature. And the amount of scientific explanation as to how things are happening in this thread is impoverished outside of what I'm adding.AZGrizFan wrote:
Here's where you lost him.
Everyone is stating carbon emission data, but they don't seem to understand the significance.
I'm still waiting for an alternative hypothesis
Wrong. AGW apologists wouldn't admit a mistake if it hit them between the eyes with a 2x4. They just scream LOUDER (much like you).youngterrier wrote:It's a lot more precise and friendlier to admitting we make mistakes in our understanding of the universe. The thing is that there hasn't been valid reasoning as of yet to invalidate our understanding of things on climate, and I'm honestly waiting for someone to present something to invalidate the facts I'm presenting, but people are consistently missing the point and bringing up comparing carbon emissions to other emitting agents and that's totally missing the point.
Really? Because I'll admit that we don't have a precise idea about the repercussions of AGW, and I even granted Baldy the points he made about the size of emissions, and I'll continue to admit mistakes when I see them fit. You guys just aren't showing actual relevant facts, let alone facts that invalidate AGW theoryAZGrizFan wrote:Wrong. AGW apologists wouldn't admit a mistake if it hit them between the eyes with a 2x4. They just scream LOUDER (much like you).youngterrier wrote:It's a lot more precise and friendlier to admitting we make mistakes in our understanding of the universe. The thing is that there hasn't been valid reasoning as of yet to invalidate our understanding of things on climate, and I'm honestly waiting for someone to present something to invalidate the facts I'm presenting, but people are consistently missing the point and bringing up comparing carbon emissions to other emitting agents and that's totally missing the point.
