Page 121 of 130 FirstFirst ... 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 ... LastLast
Results 3,001 to 3,025 of 3249
  1. #3001
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    You do comprehend that there are other ways of tracking climate trends besides human observations from manual or automated stations?
    Yes?

  2. #3002
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    I.e., "I realized you're not buying my snake oil and since I don't ski / snowboard, had no reason to keep hanging out here."
    And yet, I still hang out here?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    I.e., "debunks my half-truths." Also, I love how Ron keeps trumpeting how he's the only one who understands science. Like the 9/11 truthers saying "you just don't understand the metallurgy!"
    No, I'm saying myself and MV are the only ones who have made any attempt to try to understand the science of climate change, yet you and the rest of the sheep feel some weird obligation to chime in on subject you know nothing about.

  3. #3003
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,994
    Or maybe some of us know more that you think, but prefer not to play chess with pigeons.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  4. #3004
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Or maybe some of us know more that you think, but prefer not to play chess with pigeons.
    You've made it more than clear that isn't the case.

  5. #3005
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,837
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I've never been supportive of Trump or the republican party in this thread. My views are that politics suck and you'd have to be a moron to identify as a democrat or republican.
    Attachment 310969
    Brilliant!
    And true
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  6. #3006
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,994
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You've made it more than clear that isn't the case.
    It’s pretty clear you are a pigeon.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  7. #3007
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,470
    "I'm an Independent" = I'm a Trump supporter
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  8. #3008
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    No, I'm saying myself and MV are the only ones who have made any attempt to try to understand the science of climate change, yet you and the rest of the sheep feel some weird obligation to chime in on subject you know nothing about.
    I'd say that the scientists you attempt to debunk have made a more serious and sustained effort than you have to understand the science of climate change, even extending to the study of complicated topics like statistics and confidence level.

  9. #3009
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hyperspace!
    Posts
    1,064
    Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.

    Name:  agreement_gis_2019.gif
Views: 98
Size:  54.7 KB

    Source: NASA Earth Observatory.

  10. #3010
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,994
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    I'd say that the scientists you attempt to debunk have made a more serious and sustained effort than you have to understand the science of climate change, even extending to the study of complicated topics like statistics and confidence level.
    RJ is in a heuristic trap.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  11. #3011
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    I'd say that the scientists you attempt to debunk have made a more serious and sustained effort than you have to understand the science of climate change, even extending to the study of complicated topics like statistics and confidence level.
    I'm not really debunking "the scientists", I'm debunking what the media reports as science. My positions are backed by consensus and real data.

  12. #3012
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by wendigo View Post
    Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.

    Name:  agreement_gis_2019.gif
Views: 98
Size:  54.7 KB

    Source: NASA Earth Observatory.

  13. #3013
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,994
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm not really debunking "the scientists", I'm debunking what the media reports as science. My positions are backed by consensus and real data.
    What is your position, exactly, in one sentence?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  14. #3014
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    What is your position, exactly, in one sentence?
    There isn't a scientific consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for and how dangerous it is, linking extreme weather events to global warming is BS, and attempting a 100% non carbon energy system with our current technology would be a disaster.

  15. #3015
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,994
    We have an obligation to go to any and all measures to combat it, regardless of causation.
    I take it you don’t have kids.
    You have agreed that temperatures are rising.
    We may be doomed without any action, be we will be damned if we don’t try.
    You are tilting at the wrong windmills, ultimately.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  16. #3016
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    My positions are backed by consensus and real data.

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    There isn't a scientific consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for and how dangerous it is, linking extreme weather events to global warming is BS, and attempting a 100% non carbon energy system with our current technology would be a disaster.
    Which is it? Your position is backed by consensus, or there's no consensus?


    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    attempting a 100% non carbon energy system with our current technology would be a disaster.
    You're like someone in the 19th century saying "we'll never get the horses out of our transportation infrastructure, that's CRAZY!". And yet, here we are. It won't happen overnight, but the really crazy thing is imagining that we'll never change anything about how we currently run our industry / society.

  17. #3017
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,994
    That’s more of the myopia.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  18. #3018
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Or maybe some of us know more that you think, but prefer not to play chess with pigeons.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You've made it more than clear that isn't the case.
    Busted. Sometimes it is fun to play chess with pigeons and we just can't help ourselves.

  19. #3019
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,470
    There's no fucking way this bitch ass troll has ever taken stat or research methods. Just throwing that out there.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  20. #3020
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,837
    There’s plenty of science questioning the connection between co2 and global warming.

    But with enough faux news and rightard media you dismiss the mass slaughter of Mother Earth and say full steam ahead

    Myself I’m not convinced co2 is the root cause, but I know we’ve slaughtered too many forests and created too much garbage, pollution and over population to have not fucked things up big time.

    Conservation for conservation sake might not be a bad message instead.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  21. #3021
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    We have an obligation to go to any and all measures to combat it, regardless of causation.
    I take it you don’t have kids.
    You have agreed that temperatures are rising.
    We may be doomed without any action, be we will be damned if we don’t try.
    You are tilting at the wrong windmills, ultimately.
    Name:  nasa-giss-absolute-temperature1.png
Views: 109
Size:  31.5 KB

    We are doomed guys. We are talking about colonizing Mars, but we won't be able to figure out how to live in a 2 degree warmer world.

  22. #3022
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Which is it? Your position is backed by consensus, or there's no consensus?
    No consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for and how dangerous it is. There is consensus on a lack of connection between extreme weather and global warming.




    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    You're like someone in the 19th century saying "we'll never get the horses out of our transportation infrastructure, that's CRAZY!". And yet, here we are. It won't happen overnight, but the really crazy thing is imagining that we'll never change anything about how we currently run our industry / society.
    No, you would be like the guy saying we must stop using horses for transportation... in the 1700's... before the engine was even invented.

  23. #3023
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hyperspace!
    Posts
    1,064
    As a patron of the sciences you are no doubt aware that definitions are of utmost importance.
    Please define a scientific consensus. Without this information we have no point of reference for your position.

  24. #3024
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post
    There’s plenty of science questioning the connection between co2 and global warming.

    But with enough faux news and rightard media you dismiss the mass slaughter of Mother Earth and say full steam ahead

    Myself I’m not convinced co2 is the root cause, but I know we’ve slaughtered too many forests and created too much garbage, pollution and over population to have not fucked things up big time.

    Conservation for conservation sake might not be a bad message instead.
    I'm fully on board with calling out humanity's environmental destruction, I just don't view CO2 as a big problem, and I don't see its potential replacements (wind, solar, and hydro) as being much better environmentally. I'm 100% behind conservation, clean waters, regenerative farming, and.... (gasp) less people.

  25. #3025
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by wendigo View Post
    As a patron of the sciences you are no doubt aware that definitions are of utmost importance.
    Please define a scientific consensus. Without this information we have no point of reference for your position.
    Strong agreement amongst scientists in a specific field. Is there some other definition?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •