Bill Nye Destroys climate change-denying Trump adviser William Happer

[IAMX 3,055]

13 minutes ago, ccneat said:

so you don't have a list of climate scientists to support your claim?

You've shown capable skills of using Google and cut and paste. Feel free to use them again. Or believe you have absolutely no scientists who believe otherwise. Doesn't make a difference to me.

[TBoneTX 45,324]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

do we start hunting whales again? 

"Nuke the Whales!"

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, TBoneTX said:

"Nuke the Whales!"

reported

[TBoneTX 45,324]

Just now, IAMX said:

reported

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

46 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

how can dinosaurs be chickens if dinosaur bones were planted by satan to throw wayward americans off the jesus trail? 

I don't know, I am not a theologian, but I do know they are delicous

[Transborderwife 4,666]

3 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I don't know, I am not a theologian, but I do know they are delicous

My nephew is named Theo...his mom my sister took theology in university.  I'm almost wishing that she had made his middle name Logan...

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

46 minutes ago, IAMX said:

You've shown capable skills of using Google and cut and paste. Feel free to use them again. Or believe you have absolutely no scientists who believe otherwise. Doesn't make a difference to me.

Your opening hand was that  left wing non scientists have usurped the climate change discussion and are involved in an irrational personality cult with a focus on Gore, DiCaprio and Nye

I restated the obvious...that the overwhelming state of the evidence says that climate change is real, that is matters and that it is caused by industrial activity and you said I didn't bring evidence.

I brought the evidence from NASA and you accused me of not doing original work

Now you cannot even come up with a short list of quacks who will back you up. 

So now science doesn't matter?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I've given up debating the devout.  I have used several models recently in my studies and still find them extremely lacking in the assumptions they make that only seem to predict things in the direction the modelers want to display.  Heck, I am all for improving efficiencies, and technologies, but if we take Leonardo's advice and stop taking things from the ground, do we start hunting whales again? 

Fairly arrogant to fly over the peasants in your private plane, imploring them to live off the earth and not use fossil fuels. Typical out of touch elitist liberal. It is my belief that america is caring less and less about what these people think, as evidenced in the last election 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

Evolved, eh? Where did you get that notion? Some scientists came up with that, I bet!

Not scientists, leftists

[IAMX 3,055]

15 minutes ago, ccneat said:

 

Your opening hand was that  left wing non scientists have usurped the climate change discussion and are involved in an irrational personality cult with a focus on Gore, DiCaprio and Nye

I restated the obvious...that the overwhelming state of the evidence says that climate change is real, that is matters and that it is caused by industrial activity and you said I didn't bring evidence.

I brought the evidence from NASA and you accused me of not doing original work

Now you cannot even come up with a short list of quacks who will back you up. 

So now science doesn't matter?

You did not bring evidence of anything. You simply cut and pasted something you found using a Google search. Woohoo? I am in awe of such wisdom. You did not create anything, nor did you explain anything. So you can stop hiding behind others to make arguments for you. Argument from authority does nothing for me.

 

"climate change is real" .. is your argument, that's pretty self explanatory as to why you're not taken seriously. Not only does it ignore the numerous facets to the opposition's arguments (the inherent presumption that climate not changing is your opponents basis for opposition), but presumes it's entirely about denial rather than issues with aspects of climate change, namely blaming humans, and what humans can do to alter the worlds climate, never mind get others in developing nations on board who depend on fossil fuels just to live. You know, real world problems. The left clearly have no time for that.

 

But instead you diminish your opponents to "science doesnt matter", when you don't speak for science to begin with.. and it's a good thing, the left are horrible at trying to. I identified that if we had such a grasp on the complex system known as climate, we'd be able to accurately make models, and we're not even close to that. These are primarily physics models, just one aspect of climate, and if they can't even get that part accurately, there's a problem. Your debate centers around the presumption that more people agreeing with you means you're right (not science), and that you're an expert because you have Google (not science). Your argument likewise centers around using the work of others and trying to force others to debate them rather than you justifying, yourself, your positions and defending massive holes in these theories that are evident even to laymen. Skepticism and challenging science makes it stronger, you act like it makes it weaker. This is how you turn science into a religion, and I congratulate you and left on doing so.

 

Keep up the effort. The left are great at making this blow up in their faces.

Edited April 25, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

28 minutes ago, IAMX said:

You did not bring evidence of anything. You simply cut and pasted something you found using a Google search. Woohoo? I am in awe of such wisdom. You did not create anything, nor did you explain anything. So you can stop hiding behind others to make arguments for you. Argument from authority does nothing for me.

Again with the ad hominem attack, you cannot win on points so you attack the messenger.

 

I am assuming you are not a scientist, correct me if I am wrong.  I did bring evidence, it was not my evidence, it was the evidence of dedicated and trained scientists ( supported by your tax dollars) 

 I personally don't create or own the data but I examine it critically. The data set has evolved to where 60 % of the climate related papers supported these conclusions in the 90s to 97% today

 

Quote

 

"climate change is real" .. is your argument, that's pretty self explanatory as to why you're not taken seriously. Not only does it ignore the numerous facets to the opposition's arguments (the inherent presumption that climate not changing is your opponents basis for opposition), but presumes it's entirely about denial rather than issues with aspects of climate change, namely blaming humans, and what humans can do to alter the worlds climate, never mind get others in developing nations on board who depend on fossil fuels just to live. You know, real world problems. The left clearly have no time for that.

The facts do not blame, the facts are the facts.  Trying to point to the poor people in developing nations as a victim of liberal hypocrisy and overreach is a flimsy argument.  They have the most to gain from clean energy.

 

2016 was the first year renewable energy (solar and wind) dropped below the cost of carbon fuels and it will only get cheaper with smart gird technology.  Germany and China are eating our lunch in this technology...and the President is struggling with basic science. 

 

Quote

 

But instead you diminish your opponents to "science doesnt matter", when you don't speak for science to begin with.. and it's a good thing, the left are horrible at trying to. I identified that if we had such a grasp on the complex system known as climate, we'd be able to accurately make models, and we're not even close to that. These are primarily physics models, just one aspect of climate, and if they can't even get that part accurately, there's a problem. Your debate centers around the presumption that more people agreeing with you means you're right (not science), and that you're an expert because you have Google (not science). Your argument likewise centers around using the work of others and trying to force others to debate them rather than you justifying, yourself, your positions and defending massive holes in these theories that are evident even to laymen. Skepticism and challenging science makes it stronger, you act like it makes it weaker. This is how you turn science into a religion, and I congratulate you and left on doing so.

 So go ahead and lay out the massive holes already

 

 

Quote

 

Keep up the effort. The left are great at making this blow up in their faces.

Edit::  I forgot to thank you for being in such awe of my wisdom 

Edited April 25, 2017 by ccneat

[IAMX 3,055]

97% of 60 is 58. 58 percent. The fact that one has to move goalposts and add other criteria to try and embellish support for their cause shows a terrible premise before we even get into the data. Reeks of desperation.

 

And, you know, if there was that much a consensus climate models wouldn't vary so wildly, nor be so highly inaccurate. Yet, here we are,, with some trying to suggest that this level of knowledge is so well encompassing. Whatever floats your boat.

Edited April 25, 2017 by IAMX

[CaliCat 3,957]

44 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Not scientists, leftists

 

 

Nah. Evolution and climate change are all constructs made up by Obama. LOL. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

97% of 60 is 58. 58 percent. The fact that one has to move goalposts and add other criteria to try and embellish support for their cause shows a terrible premise before we even get into the data. Reeks of desperation.

 

And, you know, if there was that much a consensus climate models wouldn't vary so wildly, nor be so highly inaccurate. Yet, here we are,, with some trying to suggest that this level of knowledge is so well encompassing. Whatever floats your boat.

Seriously?  Let me restate: in the 90s , 60 % of the studies backed the man-made climate change. In this decade 97% of the studies back the premise. There is no 58% and there is no reeking..although I suspect there has been some partaking around here.

[CaliCat 3,957]

55 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Seriously?  Let me restate: in the 90s , 60 % of the studies backed the man-made climate change. In this decade 97% of the studies back the premise. There is no 58% and there is no reeking..although I suspect there has been some partaking around here.

 

 

It's the old race to the bottom. The planet is warming up anyway, so why not just burn it already?