Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[flacaltenn]

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politico screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

 

[flacaltenn]

What does "the WORLD" say the CO2 concentrations will be in 2050? How does that compare to the IPCC projections from 1990s?

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.

You have no FUCKING idea where I stand on at least DOZEN key GW questions and issues. There's NOT just ONE question to be asked and answered.

Do you believe in the parts of GW where the theory says this planet will IRREPARABLY destroy itself if a "trigger temp" of 2degC anomaly is reached? If you do -- WHY? And where are all the accelerations and positive feedbacks that were SUPPOSED to be apparent by now as predicted in the 1980s? You seen them yet?

I'm asking you REAL QUESTIONS -- and all ya got is taunting. Maybe thats WHY -- we need some debate and LIGHT on these issues. Because, it's been all exaggerated propaganda to this point about "what the world believes"..

You SCARED of a debate and open inquiry???

 

[BULLDOG]

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

 

[flacaltenn]

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

So -- you cant tell us "what the world thinks" about ANY of those simple ass questions that I asked you? And you've just gonna continue to troll me and believe "the science is settled"? Well get out a checkbook and start writing those $TRILL checks to the 3rd world bud. Make sure it's on your personal account.

I want those debates and confrontations. That's how the science thingy ALWAYS works..

 

[flacaltenn]

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Seems to me you fear the manipulated data, poor models, lack of empirical evidence.

Think what you want. No reason to believe you might be right this time any more than you have been so many other times.

I've been following and studying this intensively for about 25 years. And I've been much RIGHTER than the IPCC. You got my threads and posts here to prove that. I don't DENY that the Earth is warming or that man may be something like a 50% cause of that. But I REJECT the horseshit about "net positive feedbacks", accelerations, and TRIGGER temps that turn a mild problem into a world wide catastrophic cluster fuck.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

[/SIZE]

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.

You have no FUCKING idea where I stand on at least DOZEN key GW questions and issues. There's NOT just ONE question to be asked and answered.

Do you believe in the parts of GW where the theory says this planet will IRREPARABLY destroy itself if a "trigger temp" of 2degC anomaly is reached? If you do -- WHY? And where are all the accelerations and positive feedbacks that were SUPPOSED to be apparent by now as predicted in the 1980s? You seen them yet?

I'm asking you REAL QUESTIONS -- and all ya got is taunting. Maybe thats WHY -- we need some debate and LIGHT on these issues. Because, it's been all exaggerated propaganda to this point about "what the world believes"..

You SCARED of a debate and open inquiry???

You are absolutely right. I have no idea where you stand on any number of GW issues. Since I'm NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST I really don't care about all the minute details involved in the end result any more than I worry about how a harp player tunes his harp before playing a beautiful song. All I care about is the end result. The most credible source I can find says global climate change is real, and effected by man. That's good enough to make up my mind. I don't consider the people who repeat the same things you repeat to be credible.

 

[BULLDOG]

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

So -- you cant tell us "what the world thinks" about ANY of those simple ass questions that I asked you? And you've just gonna continue to troll me and believe "the science is settled"? Well get out a checkbook and start writing those $TRILL checks to the 3rd world bud. Make sure it's on your personal account.

I want those debates and confrontations. That's how the science thingy ALWAYS works..

"What the world thinks" is that climate change is real. I don't have to know every detail why. again.......not a climate scientist.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

[/SIZE]

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.

You have no FUCKING idea where I stand on at least DOZEN key GW questions and issues. There's NOT just ONE question to be asked and answered.

Do you believe in the parts of GW where the theory says this planet will IRREPARABLY destroy itself if a "trigger temp" of 2degC anomaly is reached? If you do -- WHY? And where are all the accelerations and positive feedbacks that were SUPPOSED to be apparent by now as predicted in the 1980s? You seen them yet?

I'm asking you REAL QUESTIONS -- and all ya got is taunting. Maybe thats WHY -- we need some debate and LIGHT on these issues. Because, it's been all exaggerated propaganda to this point about "what the world believes"..

You SCARED of a debate and open inquiry???

You are absolutely right. I have no idea where you stand on any number of GW issues. Since I'm NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST I really don't care about all the minute details involved in the end result any more than I worry about how a harp player tunes his harp before playing a beautiful song. All I care about is the end result. The most credible source I can find says global climate change is real, and effected by man. That's good enough to make up my mind. I don't consider the people who repeat the same things you repeat to be credible.

But yet -- you can't answer those simple questions about "what the world believes".. This is not a single question issue or settled science. Anyone buying that tripe is completely defenseless and shouldn't even HAVE an opinion. It's science -- not a fucking classical tune or political contest.

Suit up and play or stop trolling me..

 

[flacaltenn]

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

So -- you cant tell us "what the world thinks" about ANY of those simple ass questions that I asked you? And you've just gonna continue to troll me and believe "the science is settled"? Well get out a checkbook and start writing those $TRILL checks to the 3rd world bud. Make sure it's on your personal account.

I want those debates and confrontations. That's how the science thingy ALWAYS works..

"What the world thinks" is that climate change is real. I don't have to know every detail why. again.......not a climate scientist.

OH -- HOW PROFOUND IS THAT STATEMENT? you probably think it is. But in actuality on a "climate time scale" -- it's ALWAYS been changing.

"Climate change is Real"... THAT's your basis for sliming me and refusing to learn anything MORE?

 

[flacaltenn]

YOU need these debate opportunities a lot more than I do. I know that for a fact.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes and Pruitt's next debate will be Rhodes Scholar's in an open and real debate with the Flat Earther's on whether the Earth is flat or round. All participants will arrive in a jetliner that travels a Great Circle navigation route which is the only way to navigate over the surface of a sphere.

I'm so tired of the current crop of morons trying to frame everything as a 'fair and balanced' disagreement. Global Warming has been settled science for the last 15 years, PH.D's around the world already had the debate. It's over. All you ignorants that are scared of the reality you really just need to stay home and scream at the tv. Your 'opinion' has no relevance to scientific reality.

There is no debate. The phoney Lying Trump crap is just more snake-oil salesmen bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Seems to me you fear the manipulated data, poor models, lack of empirical evidence.

Think what you want. No reason to believe you might be right this time any more than you have been so many other times.

I've been following and studying this intensively for about 25 years. And I've been much RIGHTER than the IPCC. You got my threads and posts here to prove that. I don't DENY that the Earth is warming or that man may be something like a 50% cause of that. But I REJECT the horseshit about "net positive feedbacks", accelerations, and TRIGGER temps that turn a mild problem into a world wide catastrophic cluster fuck.

Good for you. At least you admit it is real. You can argue about the details all you want, but if we are responsible for 50% of the change we need to do something about it.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

[/SIZE]

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.

You have no FUCKING idea where I stand on at least DOZEN key GW questions and issues. There's NOT just ONE question to be asked and answered.

Do you believe in the parts of GW where the theory says this planet will IRREPARABLY destroy itself if a "trigger temp" of 2degC anomaly is reached? If you do -- WHY? And where are all the accelerations and positive feedbacks that were SUPPOSED to be apparent by now as predicted in the 1980s? You seen them yet?

I'm asking you REAL QUESTIONS -- and all ya got is taunting. Maybe thats WHY -- we need some debate and LIGHT on these issues. Because, it's been all exaggerated propaganda to this point about "what the world believes"..

You SCARED of a debate and open inquiry???

You are absolutely right. I have no idea where you stand on any number of GW issues. Since I'm NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST I really don't care about all the minute details involved in the end result any more than I worry about how a harp player tunes his harp before playing a beautiful song. All I care about is the end result. The most credible source I can find says global climate change is real, and effected by man. That's good enough to make up my mind. I don't consider the people who repeat the same things you repeat to be credible.

But yet -- you can't answer those simple questions about "what the world believes".. This is not a single question issue or settled science. Anyone buying that tripe is completely defenseless and shouldn't even HAVE an opinion. It's science -- not a fucking classical tune or political contest.

Suit up and play or stop trolling me..

The world believes it's real, and we need to make efforts to control it.. If you post anything other than that, I'll say you're full of shit..

 

[TomParks]

Man has nothing to do with climate change God does....Man made global warming was a chinese hoax used by liberals to destroy our conservative way of life until Trump put a stop to the madness.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Seems to me you fear the manipulated data, poor models, lack of empirical evidence.

Think what you want. No reason to believe you might be right this time any more than you have been so many other times.

I've been following and studying this intensively for about 25 years. And I've been much RIGHTER than the IPCC. You got my threads and posts here to prove that. I don't DENY that the Earth is warming or that man may be something like a 50% cause of that. But I REJECT the horseshit about "net positive feedbacks", accelerations, and TRIGGER temps that turn a mild problem into a world wide catastrophic cluster fuck.

Good for you. At least you admit it is real. You can argue about the details all you want, but if we are responsible for 50% of the change we need to do something about it.

Why do you say that? How much has the temperature risen in YOUR lifetime? (about 0.6degC) And what will it BE in 2100? Or even 2050? If it's 1.5degC by 2100 and we caused 1/2 of that -- It will be 0.75degC difference in 2100. At THAT LEVEL -- it's not at all a crisis.

The only reason it's PERCEIVED as a crisis is because the faulty projections 30 years ago said it would 4 to 8degC by 2100. And all that is bullshit and has been CONTINUALLY REVISED downward.

You don't think since the last ice age it entirely possible WITHOUT man for the climate mean temperature to vary by a degree or two? Actually it likely has.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

[/SIZE]

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.

You have no FUCKING idea where I stand on at least DOZEN key GW questions and issues. There's NOT just ONE question to be asked and answered.

Do you believe in the parts of GW where the theory says this planet will IRREPARABLY destroy itself if a "trigger temp" of 2degC anomaly is reached? If you do -- WHY? And where are all the accelerations and positive feedbacks that were SUPPOSED to be apparent by now as predicted in the 1980s? You seen them yet?

I'm asking you REAL QUESTIONS -- and all ya got is taunting. Maybe thats WHY -- we need some debate and LIGHT on these issues. Because, it's been all exaggerated propaganda to this point about "what the world believes"..

You SCARED of a debate and open inquiry???

You are absolutely right. I have no idea where you stand on any number of GW issues. Since I'm NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST I really don't care about all the minute details involved in the end result any more than I worry about how a harp player tunes his harp before playing a beautiful song. All I care about is the end result. The most credible source I can find says global climate change is real, and effected by man. That's good enough to make up my mind. I don't consider the people who repeat the same things you repeat to be credible.

But yet -- you can't answer those simple questions about "what the world believes".. This is not a single question issue or settled science. Anyone buying that tripe is completely defenseless and shouldn't even HAVE an opinion. It's science -- not a fucking classical tune or political contest.

Suit up and play or stop trolling me..

The world believes it's real, and we need to make efforts to control it.. If you post anything other than that, I'll say you're full of shit..

Those are unscientific weasel words. WHAT does the world believe is real? That if we reach a 2degC trigger, this defective junker of planet will commit suicide no matter WHAT we do? What is "real"?

How much will the temperature RISE by 2065 or 2100? THAT'S what's required to guide ANY public policy..

Not platitudes like "it's real"... That's WHY -- we need to AIR THIS and I would vote to invoke the Emergency Broadcast system and FORCE voters in America to LISTEN to "what the world believes" and the people who want to CORRECT some of the exaggerated claims and bullshit that's floating like turds in the public minds.

 

[BULLDOG]

[/SIZE]

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.

You have no FUCKING idea where I stand on at least DOZEN key GW questions and issues. There's NOT just ONE question to be asked and answered.

Do you believe in the parts of GW where the theory says this planet will IRREPARABLY destroy itself if a "trigger temp" of 2degC anomaly is reached? If you do -- WHY? And where are all the accelerations and positive feedbacks that were SUPPOSED to be apparent by now as predicted in the 1980s? You seen them yet?

I'm asking you REAL QUESTIONS -- and all ya got is taunting. Maybe thats WHY -- we need some debate and LIGHT on these issues. Because, it's been all exaggerated propaganda to this point about "what the world believes"..

You SCARED of a debate and open inquiry???

You are absolutely right. I have no idea where you stand on any number of GW issues. Since I'm NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST I really don't care about all the minute details involved in the end result any more than I worry about how a harp player tunes his harp before playing a beautiful song. All I care about is the end result. The most credible source I can find says global climate change is real, and effected by man. That's good enough to make up my mind. I don't consider the people who repeat the same things you repeat to be credible.

But yet -- you can't answer those simple questions about "what the world believes".. This is not a single question issue or settled science. Anyone buying that tripe is completely defenseless and shouldn't even HAVE an opinion. It's science -- not a fucking classical tune or political contest.

Suit up and play or stop trolling me..

The world believes it's real, and we need to make efforts to control it.. If you post anything other than that, I'll say you're full of shit..

Those are unscientific weasel words. WHAT does the world believe is real? That if we reach a 2degC trigger, this defective junker of planet will commit suicide no matter WHAT we do? What is "real"?

How much will the temperature RISE by 2065 or 2100? THAT'S what's required to guide ANY public policy..

Not platitudes like "it's real"... That's WHY -- we need to AIR THIS and I would vote to invoke the Emergency Broadcast system and FORCE voters in America to LISTEN to "what the world believes" and the people who want to CORRECT some of the exaggerated claims and bullshit that's floating like turds in the public minds.

They believe it enough to make real material changes to counteract it. No, I can't give you a list of specific changes according to country for every industrialized country in the world, and I don't care to look them up.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Just in case anyone doesn't understand what 'science' actually means......


Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often distinguished from the empirical sciences as the former does not depend on empirical observations.[4][5] Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences.[6] Science is related to research, and is normally organized by a university, a college, or a research institute.

From classical antiquity through the 19th century, science as a type of knowledge was more closely linked to philosophy than it is now and, in fact, in the West the term "natural philosophy" encompassed fields of study that are today associated with science such as physics, astronomy, medicine, among many others.[7]:3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-9 In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature. As a slow process over centuries, the word "science" became increasingly associated with what is today known as the scientific method, a structured way to study the natural world.[8][9]

Science - Wikipedia



Both this rock we live on and the atmosphere surrounding it has been in constant change from the very beginning. Is there anything we can do about it? No, not likely. Atleast not enough to make a big enough difference.
Even if all humans on earth got rid of their vehicles, stopped the flow of concrete, deforestation, demolished all factories and planted trees & lived off the land as our ancestors did before the industrial age..........it still wouldn't stop the earth or climate from changing.



For those that keep screaming 'Global Warming' or Climate Change'.......just what is it you expect the world to do to fix it?

 

[SSDD]

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Do you have any idea how many times thought history you would be dead wrong by simply accepting the consensus?...any idea at all?