Clear and present dangers really aren’t boogeymen.Trump really does live rent free in your head.
Boogeymen should be made of sterner stuff methinks...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Clear and present dangers really aren’t boogeymen.Trump really does live rent free in your head.
Boogeymen should be made of sterner stuff methinks...
Where’s the cooling, dumbass?In reality, our GlowBall Warning climate may be cooling, usher in the 70s Ice Age Alarmism...
🌨🌨
Meanwhile, we found that simply substituting an alternative solar forcing dataset to that considered by AR6’s climate model hindcasts can substantially increase the amount of the 1850–2018 warming that can be explained in terms of natural forcing from 21% to 70% of the long-term warming implied by the “rural and urban” series and 87% of the “rural-only” temperature series.
If we have the coldest year ever next year, AJ and his elk of science deniers will say, "See!? It balanced out!"The world had its hottest month EVER last month
The majority of opposition to climate change is based on religion. God has a plan...etc.....etc.
*chuckle* So what you're saying is that you're still basically ignorant.
And you didn't watch the podcast either. Just spouting an opinion based on your own prejudice, not facts.The majority of opposition to climate change is based on religion. God has a plan...etc.....etc.
So you're saying that your opinion is fact and my opinion is opinionAnd you didn't watch the podcast either. Just spouting an opinion based on your own prejudice, not facts.
No, you wanted your "food for thought" to be factual precedence for us to acknowledge.I merely posted food for thought, the presenter states some facts.
Fuck you. You can't read minds and seem to be quite content in your ignorance.No, you wanted your "food for thought" to be factual precedence for us to acknowledge.
I just read your wordsFuck you. You can't read minds and seem to be quite content in your ignorance.
But you keep thinking you're above your own publicly admitted bullshitAnd you didn't watch the podcast either. Just spouting an opinion based on your own prejudice, not facts.
Don't be mad, Ish. You tried, but your mouth can't win 'em all.Fuck you. You can't read minds and seem to be quite content in your ignorance.
Your podcast is wrong. That’s been proven.In your opinion, which are like belly buttons............everyone has one.
If you had bothered to watch the podcast, which being the ignorant political slut you are, you didn't, you'd find that;
The presenter agrees with all of the FACTS put forth in the IPCC reports. He even gives some additional support to those facts.
He then goes on to dissemble how the politicians and media have bastardized those facts.
So what do you want to be when you finally grow up? A curious mind in search of the truth, or some mindless drone blindly following the BS your fed by politicians and the media?
Sounds like your first post with the source could've included more.In your opinion, which are like belly buttons............everyone has one.
If you had bothered to watch the podcast, which being the ignorant political slut you are, you didn't, you'd find that;
The presenter agrees with all of the FACTS put forth in the IPCC reports. He even gives some additional support to those facts.
He then goes on to dissemble how the politicians and media have bastardized those facts.
So what do you want to be when you finally grow up? A curious mind in search of the truth, or some mindless drone blindly following the BS your fed by politicians and the media?
•Watch the podcast and get back with some cogent responses would be a start.
A political editorial is NOT a cogent response.•
The most cogent response possible was provided by Gary Yohe’s direct rebuttal to Steven Koonin’s book " Unsettled" in Scientific American.
The link was already provided by another poster, but it appears you are still struggling to find it.
So here you go……again:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/?amp=true
Hope that ^ helps
My favorite quote from the article, and, likely, the most salient point:
“Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug.”
Ironically, that ^ legitimate information has been available almost as long as Steven Koonin’s work of misinformation / disinformation.
If you had seriously wanted to provide “food for thought”, you should have done your research, and included Gary Yohe’s rebuttal.
I found Gary Yohe’s rebuttal to be a comprehensive and compelling dismantling of Steven Koonin’s “distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug.”
Coonin’s book is an opinion piece.A political editorial is NOT a cogent response.
A political editorial is NOT a cogent response.
Coonin’s book is an opinion piece.
•A political editorial is NOT a cogent response.