Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

Status
Not open for further replies.
flip said:
Here is your evil brotherhood. I present you with a scientific consensus, and you instantly reply with specific agenda.
Click to expand...

aren't you doing same thing? you and Heartland Insitute? :hmm:
 
Jiro said:
aren't you doing same thing? you and Heartland Insitute? :hmm:
Click to expand...

Ah, now I get it, you don't know what "scientific consensus" means.

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study."
 
Jiro said:
the same way that dinosaur activities and cycling parts went along. I wouldn't be surprised if we had same fate as dinosaurs :lol:
Click to expand...

Huh? How did dinosaur acitivities and cycling go along then?
 
flip said:
Ah, now I get it, you don't know what "scientific consensus" means.

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study."
Click to expand...

right.... again - see my post #414.
 
Jiro said:
:dunno: you tell me. I wasn't there :lol:
Click to expand...

Let's take this in steps:
1. You accept using the consensus that global warming caused by man, and claims it's a cycling pattern in nature.
2. You explain how it work, by saying that it's the same as dino activities and cycling patterns.
3. You explain that you don't know how dino activities and cycling pattern works.

Let's guess, you don't know a shite about anything here at all?
 
flip said:
Ok, what is the consensus among scientist on climate then? And what is the consensus among climate scientists?
Click to expand...

facepalm. I guess I need to bring in a parrot. I seem to be repeating myself.
 
flip said:
Let's take this in steps:
1. You accept using the consensus that global warming caused by man, and claims it's a cycling pattern in nature.
Click to expand...
wrong. I accepted that global warming is real and happening but caused by men? not at all.

flip said:
2. You explain how it work, by saying that it's the same as dino activities and cycling patterns.
Click to expand...
probably.

flip said:
3. You explain that you don't know how dino activities and cycling pattern works.

Let's guess, you don't know a shite about anything here at all?
Click to expand...
do you know? even a scientific community doesn't know. how can we possibly know? it's over millions years ago! :lol:


so what are you in my post #414? people with..... ?
 
chickenfuturesucks.jpg


:lol:
 
Jiro said:
facepalm. I guess I need to bring in a parrot. I seem to be repeating myself.
Click to expand...

Afraid to say loudly what the consensus is among climate scientists is? You don't need to repeat, as you haven't said what it is. I challenge you to write the consensus in the reply to this post, and not refering to another post. Good luck :)
 
flip said:
Afraid to say loudly what the consensus is among climate scientists is? You don't need to repeat, as you haven't said what it is. I challenge you to write the consensus in the reply to this post, and not refering to another post. Good luck :)
Click to expand...

:confused: may I ask what is your background in this subject?
 
Jiro said:
wrong. I accepted that global warming is real and happening but caused by men? not at all.
Click to expand...

I write:
"It's "scientific consensus has agreed that human activities have impact on the global warming". The question is how much."

You reply
"fine. it's still same descriptions anyway"

Is that meth really good for you?
 
Jiro said:
:confused: may I ask what is your background in this subject?
Click to expand...

I will perhaps tell, but funny that you don't want to say what the scientific consensus is among climate researchers. :lol:
 
flip said:
I write:
"It's "scientific consensus has agreed that human activities have impact on the global warming". The question is how much."

You reply
"fine. it's still same descriptions anyway"

Is that meth really good for you?
Click to expand...

flip said:
I will perhaps tell, but funny that you don't want to say what the scientific consensus is among climate researchers. :lol:
Click to expand...

which is why I'm asking for your background in this subject so I can construct my answer as according to your level :)
 
Jiro said:
which is why I'm asking for your background in this subject so I can construct my answer as according to your level :)
Click to expand...

Ok, let's say I work with CO2 emissions in the offshore industry, so now you know the level. Good luck :)
 
flip said:
Ok, let's say I work with CO2 emissions in the offshore industry, so now you know the level. Good luck :)
Click to expand...

why thank you for answering my question. ok here we go

according to your post #68 - 2 key questions out of 9 questions were pointed out -
1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90% agreed with first question and 82% for second.

from the article you provided -
"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

Now - I don't know what you hope to gain from me answering your question with 90% and 82%. It is apparent to me that you are taking this subject with a singular focus and narrow mind while disregarding the fact that Earth system is too complex to conclude on something as agreed by the scientific community.. hence my colorful description in my post #414.

As said in my post #290 - when a variable (man) is added to the system, the equation has to change. It's full of paradox and nuances. OF COURSE men do play a role but so do increasing population of livestock, cockroach, rats, etc. I did not deny the existence of global warming nor did I deny that men is responsible for global warming.

I simply dismissed a statement claiming that men is largely responsible for global warming. Like you said - "the question is how much?" My stance? not much.

Men did contribute to global warming but men did not cause global warming. BIG DIFFERENCE! thus - my post #414 - "it is up to people to understand what the scientific consensus has agreed on and the details behind it. sadly enough - most people ignore or do not bother educating themselves with details behind it. They depend on what media feed to them - disinformation & misinformation."

:cool2:
 
flip said:
Funny how some people here misinterprent you all the time, must be something with lack of knowledge to do :lol: We are really depedent on old growth forest yes, is a reason to worry. I think people living in large cities, far away from the nature, makes it harder for them to undertand how the earth works.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah..

Jiro said:
the same way that dinosaur activities and cycling parts went along. I wouldn't be surprised if we had same fate as dinosaurs :lol:
Click to expand...

Our fate is very different than the dinosaurs. If their fate were the same as ours, then we should have found their ancient temples, beliefs, languages, the studying of stars, and their cultures, etc. But the dinosaurs do not have those, that show how much less logical the dinosaurs are compare to us.
 
PuyoPiyo said:
Our fate is very different than the dinosaurs. If their fate were the same as ours, then we should have found their ancient temples, beliefs, languages, the studying of stars, and their cultures, etc. But the dinosaurs do not have those, that show how much less logical the dinosaurs are compare to us.
Click to expand...

because hundred of million years is a very long time. Volcano, earthquake, asteroid strike, increased sea level, etc. may have buried/destroyed it. Since water covers roughly 70% of Earth, did you know we have explored only about 2-3% of our ocean? :hmm:

again - intelligence has nothing to do with nature because the nature does not care. It moves on with or without humans :)
 
Jiro said:
because hundred of million years is a very long time. Volcano, earthquake, asteroid strike, increased sea level, etc. may have buried/destroyed it. Since water covers roughly 70% of Earth, did you know we have explored only about 2-3% of our ocean? :hmm:
Click to expand...

The dinosaurs have no ability to do like the human can do. We have been discovering many things, and the only thing that are logically in the ancients that was found was by us, the humans.

again - intelligence has nothing to do with nature because the nature does not care. It moves on with or without humans :)
Click to expand...

Where in the quote you got from mine that talk about the nature?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top