Tweet
A piece signed by 16 scientists stating that there's no need to panic about global warming.
-
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader -
Good to hear I can continue to not panic on this issue.Originally posted by il Padrino Ute View Post"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf -
There was never any need to panic. Unfortunately, the left felt there was and silenced those who disagreed.Originally posted by Moliere View Post"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear LeaderComment
-
Proof by contradiction: This thread (and the article cited in a major American newspaper) proves you are wrong.Originally posted by il Padrino Ute View Post
Are you inventing any new Che quotes today?Comment
-
Well done! Clearly he meant that the left had rigidly enforced a complete ban on even the slightest utterance of disagreement with their climate agenda! You certainly showed him! And the che reference? Genius, as it is so pertinent!Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
I am glad to see you adopt this standard in evaluating rhetoric and look forward to its application to your own posts.PLesa excuse the tpyos.Comment
-
But the left hasn't done this. There have been no bans, and there has been no enforcement. And really, the matter of whether evidence supports significant human contribution to climate change is an apolitical question of fact. There are many conservative-minded climate scientists who agree with the majority of their peers on this issue. So yes, you are basically wrong in every possible way that you could be wrong.Originally posted by creekster View PostComment
-
Are you really so obtuse to miss the sarcasm? perhaps.Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
The point isnt if human activity contributes to climate change. That is not really in dispute. Of course it contributes. The issue in the article is whether there is a factual basis for certain policy alternatives. The consensus so often mentioned in the press breaks down on this question.
The least surprising thing here, of course, is that you conclude I am wrong in every possible way I could be wrong. At least that conclusion was predictable.PLesa excuse the tpyos.Comment
-
Staying neutral on this subject and simply making an observation: somebody is really dropping the ball on bringing the actual science to the people. Because politics is now involved in the dialogue, there needs to be an effort (from both sides of the issue but mostly the “left” side) to disseminate the actual science to the masses. For example what have studies consisted of actually doing to arrive at conclusions? What are the conclusions and then break down a scientific model used to forecast. The most that the average person knows about any climate studies is that greenhouse gasses are bad and probably the polar ice studies. (and the latter only because of that one natural disaster flick)
Simply continuing to assert that there is a consensus in the scientific community isn’t going to change opinions in the near term. In the minds of most conservative folks, scientists = liberal university dwellers that look down on uneducated people.Comment
-
The level of contribution is certainly in dispute. How many decimal places are we having to go out to find the additive or subtractive value?Originally posted by creekster View PostComment
Comment