The Environment Thread

[Mark H.]

#BREAKING: #Parisagreement adopted by nearly 200 countries glbn.ca/VO54d

 

Probably the same napkins the Kyoto Accord was written on

[rebusrankin]

Is there a group for believes in climate change, not a fan of current agreements because they seem more about wealth redistribution than real change?

[New_Earth_Mud]

Its not hard to grasp that running a car in a closed area is bad for us to breath.

 

Billions n billions doing  this may make it hard for us to breath

[Fatty Liver]

Its not hard to grasp that running a car in a closed area is bad for us to breath.

 

Billions n billions doing  this may make it hard for us to breath

 

There in lies the problem, the earth's resources are limited but the proliferation of man is not. 

The Grand Banks of Newfoundland were wiped out in most of our lifetimes, what did we learn?  Nuthin.

 

Who Killed the Grand Banks?

In almost the blink of an eye, Canada's east coast cod fishery collapsed completely. The famous Grand Banks fishery was dead. First sounded by European explorers in the late 15th century, the banks were internationally known to be a famous fishing ground for the Northern cod. Sadly, this is no longer the case. While many theories abound surrounding its destruction, including over-fishing, weak scientific fishery modeling, and foreign rapaciousness, the fact is that after a 15-year moratorium the ecosystem of the Grand Banks has changed irrevocably. This is a timely issue as environmental concerns are front of mind for all levels of government and for the public. What conclusions does the decimation of the cod hold for us for our natural resources that are being wrenched from our landscape, rivers and oceans?

 

The end came officially on July 2, 1992: John Crosbie, Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced a moratorium on Northern cod stocks. For half a millennium, the Grand Banks cod had sustained international fishing fleets, boosted the world’s economy, become the flash point in power politics, and was the lifeblood of generations of villages perched on rocky outcrops along the Newfoundland coast. Crosbie’s announcement was the final nail in the Grand Banks coffin.

 

What happened? For 16 years, accountability has been dodged. The media has been mute. Successive governments buried the shameful tale under layers of secrecy, subsidies and the “good news” story of off-shore oil.

 

The new cod-fishing fleets – technological juggernauts with the capacity to ravage a sea floor – have denied responsibility. A few courageous marine biologists have spoken up, only to find themselves squarely in the sights of government censors. The in-shore fishery – the small-boat fishermen who plied the cold waters of the Banks for generations – now reflect bitterly on better times.

 

When they saw the stocks decline – and their livelihood with it – they sounded the first alarm, but apparently no one was listening.

 

Alex Rose asks who is listening now. The answer to who killed the Grand Banks just might be another alarm bell for us today, signalling future environmental and ecosystem destruction. And while theories abound as to what caused the catastrophic collapse – botched science, timorous and fluctuating political will, a boom in the seal population -- it is indisputable that the ecosystem of the cold Grand Bank waters has changed dramatically.

 

Despite a decade of rhetorical hand wringing, served up with dollops of Canadian official denial, Rose has salvaged one hard truth: the Grand Banks cod fishery was wiped out because of made-in-Canada greed and willful blindness. Newfoundlanders and Canadians, now shamed and embarrassed into a stony silence, worked overtime to decimate one of the world’s greatest biological bounties. In a frenzy of collective hysteria, Canadians created an environmental catastrophe here on our own shore.

 

As the oil sands exploration gouges the landscape of northern Alberta, as overfishing hammers stocks of Pacific salmon, the fate of the Grand Banks has become a cautionary tale now told around the world. There’s a price to pay when a society ignores its role as a steward of the environment. This poses the question of our generation: will the ecological disaster that befell the Northern cod happen again?

[kelownabomberfan]

Conrad Black sums it up for me:
 

I am not a climate change denier, I am an unsuccessful climate change evidence-seeker, like Jacques Cartier or Columbus peering into the distance to see a new world. And so far there is nothing there. My late friend Maurice Strong told me my Florida ocean-side home would become a natural aquarium; it hasn’t. China and India would rather have economic growth and job creation than dispel the smog of Beijing and Mumbai. They are where we were in 1950, but the climate isn’t changing. If it ever does, I will join Tabatha in the anti-denial thought reform counselling service, but the global warmers have already fled into the Forest Primeval.

 

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-the-perfectly-respectable-environmental-movement-has-been-hijacked-by-climate-radicals

[The Unknown Poster]

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun

 

 

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

 

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

 

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

 

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

[Fatty Liver]

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun

 

 

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

 

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

 

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

 

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

 

 

In other news, Alberta rednecks plan to hold a Sunday prayer meeting, picnic and lynching for newly elected Premier Rachel Notley. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun

 

 

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

 

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

 

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

 

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

 

 

In other news, Alberta rednecks plan to hold a Sunday prayer meeting, picnic and lynching for newly elected Premier Rachel Notley. 

 

Link?

[Mr Dee]

Zoom...

[17to85]

Sorry stopped reading when you started insulting me. Don't need a science lesson from you. As far as paying attention I don't care nearly enough to recall which poster posted what other then a couple. By the same token i assume you don't pay attention to what I post either considering the direction your post was going. So we're even!

Apparently you do need the science lesson because you're not getting it. And as far as insulting, you admitted that you haven't been paying attention so is calling into question whether you have paid attention really all that much of an insult? 

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun

 

 

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

 

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

 

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

 

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

 

 

In other news, Alberta rednecks plan to hold a Sunday prayer meeting, picnic and lynching for newly elected Premier Rachel Notley. 

 

Link?

 

 

If you insist.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-assassination-comments-bill-6-brian-jean-1.3361063

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Sorry stopped reading when you started insulting me. Don't need a science lesson from you. As far as paying attention I don't care nearly enough to recall which poster posted what other then a couple. By the same token i assume you don't pay attention to what I post either considering the direction your post was going. So we're even!

Apparently you do need the science lesson because you're not getting it. And as far as insulting, you admitted that you haven't been paying attention so is calling into question whether you have paid attention really all that much of an insult? 

 

Actually what I stated in the portion you quoted but oddly didnt seem to read was that I dont care enough to recall which poster posted what.  I generally reply to posts, not the poster.  That way Im not biased against the content even if its from someone I dont like.  Many times I dont even look to see who posted what.  I just read the post and reply if I so desire.  So its not a shot at you.  Its just the way it is.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun

 

 

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

 

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

 

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

 

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

 

 

In other news, Alberta rednecks plan to hold a Sunday prayer meeting, picnic and lynching for newly elected Premier Rachel Notley. 

 

Link?

 

 

If you insist.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-assassination-comments-bill-6-brian-jean-1.3361063

 

Utterly ridiculous.  I hope those morons are prosecuted.

[basslicker]

Yes, this is an appeal to authority. I'm just an internet idiot, I can't argue climate science and I won't just copy words from a friendly website. But if you're going to have an authority, science is a pretty good one to trust -- its batting average is pretty high.

Except when they are predicting ice ages!

If there's one thing humans have proven, it's that we constantly prove ourselves wrong.

[basslicker]

There was tree core studies done as well to learn about climate over long periods of time. But ofcourse, both sides believe the results serve as evidence to their claims. Someone made the point that we only have concrete weather studies for a pretty brief period of time. I think thats an important point. And KBF's links to the "Ice Age" stuff from the 70's....its exactly what we were taught in school. I was very young and terrified. I remember going home and asking my parents if we were really going to all die in an ice age and could we please move south.

I think we all agree we should be kind to the earth and attempt to develop better technology to this end. But Im still on the side that the Climate Change guru's accept speculation as fact and we should temper the zeal a bit.

and when there are two sides arguing about what the data means and one side has 90% of the support then you simply write off the 10% as quacks. Science isn't opinion, if the 10% had valid interpretations they would be taken more seriously. This is how science works. For a hypothesis, test hypothesis and data either confirms or refutes hypothesis, other scientists try and replicate the data gathered and determine if your experiment was good or bad. Science is always questioning everything and it's always adapting. That's why the ice age stuff from the 70s disappeared. Not because science is wrong, but because science is always searching for the correct answer. Always. Your arguments really do sound a lot like the creationists, which is arguing from a point of not understanding the scientific process.

Well I suppose we could employ the "he who yells loudest is right" or the "I say you suck so Im right" methods. But realistically, there is science on both sides. if you're saying you'd write off 10% of scientific study or result, I'd say you're simply being very closed minded.

Scientists can certainly tie lay people up in knots. But there has been plenty of easy to understand opinion and information in this thread that makes it pretty silly to swallow the Global Warning stuff without a second thought. By that token, if we were able to have this discussion in the 70's you'd be telling dismissing me and others when we questioned if we really were entering an Ice Age. You'd say ofcourse we are, the "scientists" say so.

The world warms and cools. What is very disingenuous is the information provided to the general public does not generally include this information. It doesnt say "at some point, the ice caps will melt no matter what humans do, at sea levels will rise, and coastal cities will be under water. It is inevitable that this will happen at some point in the life of the planet. So anyway...we sill think we can hold that off for awhile by doing this...." they dont frame it like that. They frame it like "we can stop this from happening." You cant stop it from happening.

So at what point do you think there is a limit to the expense of trying? Especially versus (as others have pointed out) saving lives right now at a fraction of the cost?

Do you really think all life on earth will end due to man-made global warming in the next 100 years? I dont. I hope I live for another 100 years and you do too...so I can say I told you so.

Are you paying attention? I've already said my piece on the idea of doom and gloom and the politicizing of it, but you really come across like you have no concept of the scientific method and how people can claim to have science on their side but are doing it wrong. Here's an example, first year chemistry lab we were doing an experiment meant to show the conservation of matter, well my results came back and the thing lost some matter somewhere. Now I coulda tried to say "see the principle is bunk, I scienced the **** out of it and here's the results" Instead the prof gave me a poor mark for ******* something up. This is why I bring up the creationist comparison. There's people who think they have science on their side when they say evolution doesn't happen, but it's bad science. It's the same when people deny that global warming is happening. Hell let's not even call it global warming, that's an old term, the correct term is climate change because lots of things happen when the climate changes it's not just warming. We can argue about the impact CO2 has on it, we can argue about what should be done about it, but arguing that it's not happening is a fools argument that has no sound basis in science.

Here's the thing, the climate could start to cool all on it's own despite the increased number of greenhouse gases, that doesn't make the science wrong, just means something else happened.

Calm down son. You have a problem with opposing viewpoints?

An ndp government or environmental group has a job for you somewhere.

[kelownabomberfan]

North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun

 

 

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

 

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

 

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

 

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

 

In other news, Alberta rednecks plan to hold a Sunday prayer meeting, picnic and lynching for newly elected Premier Rachel Notley.

 

For someone who is still being referred to as "newly elected" she's sure done a ton of damage to that province.  I can't even imagine what the next 3.5 years holds in store for the poor Albertans.  If they really are serious about ousting the NDP, it's time to start the recall campaign, and time to send the Starbucks baristas scurrying back to their mommy's basements where they belong, instead of creating horrendously stupid government policy.

[johnzo]

Miami is going to be the North American city that takes it hardest earliest from sea level rise.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

According to the article, that part of South Florida is built at low elevation on porous sandstone. When the sea levels rise, the water will saturate the rock and from there, the sewers. Miami Beach is already hurting from this. We will see what happens.

Would love to hear perspectives on this from our earth science people.

(yes, it's the Guardian, they are a filthy partisan media outfit)

[Fatty Liver]

Miami is going to be the North American city that takes it hardest earliest from sea level rise.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

According to the article, that part of South Florida is built at low elevation on porous sandstone. When the sea levels rise, the water will saturate the rock and from there, the sewers. Miami Beach is already hurting from this. We will see what happens.

Would love to hear perspectives on this from our earth science people.

(yes, it's the Guardian, they are a filthy partisan media outfit)

 

I believe the entire state of Florida used to be a sandbar, then it evolved into a swamp.

[kelownabomberfan]

Miami is going to be the North American city that takes it hardest earliest from sea level rise.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

According to the article, that part of South Florida is built at low elevation on porous sandstone. When the sea levels rise, the water will saturate the rock and from there, the sewers. Miami Beach is already hurting from this. We will see what happens.

Would love to hear perspectives on this from our earth science people.

(yes, it's the Guardian, they are a filthy partisan media outfit)

Except that Miami was supposed to be under water several years ago, and it still hasn't happened. If the science is "solid", why has every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?

[The Unknown Poster]

In 1000 years when Florida is finally under water there will still be climate change chicken littles saying "see we've been saying this for 1000 years and you wouldn't listen. Now look".

[Mr Dee]

NEW

Lake Poopo, Bolivia's 2nd-largest lake, dries up

Climate change has boosted temperatures, tripling evaporation

Thomson Reuters Posted: Dec 18, 2015 10:24 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 18, 2015 12:05 PM ET

"The area has long been populated by mining outfits, which depended on the lake. For their part, members of local communities like Untavi historically made their living off fishing and other activities dependent on the body of water.

With the water now gone, animals have died off in the millions, according to studies. And the local families, having lost much of their sustenance, have been forced to migrate."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/lake-poopo-1.3371359

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

Miami is going to be the North American city that takes it hardest earliest from sea level rise.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

According to the article, that part of South Florida is built at low elevation on porous sandstone. When the sea levels rise, the water will saturate the rock and from there, the sewers. Miami Beach is already hurting from this. We will see what happens.

Would love to hear perspectives on this from our earth science people.

(yes, it's the Guardian, they are a filthy partisan media outfit)

Except that Miami was supposed to be under water several years ago, and it still hasn't happened. If the science is "solid", why has every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?

 

 

 

In 1000 years when Florida is finally under water there will still be climate change chicken littles saying "see we've been saying this for 1000 years and you wouldn't listen. Now look".

 

 

There is sooo much wrong in these two post- all you get is a snide remark, sorry. 

 

I am starting to expect a few gems from you two:

-the earth is only 6000 yrs old- dinosaur bones? those were put here as God's test or the devil to trick us

-Gravity has not been proven, it's only a theory.

-Evolution? Just a theory, unless you include mud or clay as a point of origin.

-Earth is round? Come on! 

-Earth goes around the sun? MADNESS!

 

Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table. 

[17to85]

 

 

Miami is going to be the North American city that takes it hardest earliest from sea level rise.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

According to the article, that part of South Florida is built at low elevation on porous sandstone. When the sea levels rise, the water will saturate the rock and from there, the sewers. Miami Beach is already hurting from this. We will see what happens.

Would love to hear perspectives on this from our earth science people.

(yes, it's the Guardian, they are a filthy partisan media outfit)

Except that Miami was supposed to be under water several years ago, and it still hasn't happened. If the science is "solid", why has every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?

 

 

 

In 1000 years when Florida is finally under water there will still be climate change chicken littles saying "see we've been saying this for 1000 years and you wouldn't listen. Now look".

 

 

There is sooo much wrong in these two post- all you get is a snide remark, sorry. 

 

I am starting to expect a few gems from you two:

-the earth is only 6000 yrs old- dinosaur bones? those were put here as God's test or the devil to trick us

-Gravity has not been proven, it's only a theory.

-Evolution? Just a theory, unless you include mud or clay as a point of origin.

-Earth is round? Come on! 

-Earth goes around the sun? MADNESS!

 

Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table. 

 

But gravity is just a theory... It's actually not one of the things anti-science people say, it's used to try and explain to the ignorant types how a scientific theory is different from the traditional use of the word theory. 

[kelownabomberfan]

Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table.

Look, you can be a giant jerk here, that's fine. You are just like every single other warm-monger I know, who just twists words and then calls you names if you dare disagree with the bogus "consensus". What I said was that there have been zero predictions about man-made climate change that have come true. Zero. So why is that if the "science" is so solid? That's all I said. I didn't mention evolution or gravity, so why even bring them up?

[17to85]

 

Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table.

Look, you can be a giant jerk here, that's fine. You are just like every single other warm-monger I know, who just twists words and then calls you names if you dare disagree with the bogus "consensus". What I said was that there have been zero predictions about man-made climate change that have come true. Zero. So why is that if the "science" is so solid? That's all I said. I didn't mention evolution or gravity, so why even bring them up?

 

The reason evolution comes up is because you are using a similar style of arguing that creationists use to argue evolution. It's dressed up as being rational and logical and yes even scientific, but it's really not. The bogus consensus is not wrong, the thing about science is that it's constantly evolving as new information comes along. A lot of the predictions you like to claim as bogus were always intended to be worst case scenarios so that alone gives flexibility as to what did or didn't actually happen.