Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Copy and pasted from Wikipedia... I ignore arguments which aren't one's own, and I also reject Wikipedia as a source on sight. It is too often erroneous, incomplete, and can be edited by virtually anyone... It is not a valid source.Global Warming is NOT science; it is religion. It rejects logic, science, and mathematics. It rejects logic because it is a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering any argumentation based on it to be void. It rejects the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law, and it thinks that models are data. We don't have the means to measure the temperature of Earth (not enough thermometers). This is where AGW rejects mathematics...Science is not lying, you are.
Evolution is a religion; it is not science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution may or may not be real.Evolution is real
Global Warming is NOT real. It outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.Global Warming is real
I am anti PUBLIC schools; not anti schools.Republicans are anti schools anti science and media. Anyone who might tell you the truth.
I am a fully supporter of science. It is YOU who is denying science...
I am not anti media... I am anti media propaganda...
God you suck for sucking me into this argument
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[2][3][4]Some deniers endorse the term, while others prefer the term climate change skepticism.[3]Several scientists have noted that "skepticism" is an inaccurate description for those who deny anthropogenic global warming.[5][6][7] In effect, the two terms form a continuous, overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics: both reject, to a greater or lesser extent, the scientific consensus on climate change.[8][9] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[10] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism[8][9] and pseudoscience.[11]
The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.[12][13][14] In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism.[15] The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.[8]
Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change,[16][17] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[18][19][20] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[21][22]
Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States.[23][24] From 2015 to 2017 (after having already served from 2003 to 2007), the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was chaired by oil lobbyist and climate change denier Jim Inhofe, who had previously called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people" and claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor.[25] He was succeeded in 2017 by John Barrasso, who similarly said: "The climate is constantly changing. The role human activity plays is not known."[26] Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO
2 emissions.[27] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.[19][28][29][30] More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[31] The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.[32] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[33] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[34]
Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry
So basically it's not just 100 scientists who believe global warming is real. It's research. Studies. Experiments. It's a collection of evidence that tells us no doubt men are causing global warming. Even most republicans admit it at this point.
So it's amazing to find someone like you who is still a flat earth freak.
What possible evidence can I show you that isn't already out there?
Precisely... That's why I do not accept Wikipedia as a source. I dismiss it on sight. With me, people need to make arguments of their own...Using Wiki as a source......?????Global Warming is NOT science; it is religion. It rejects logic, science, and mathematics. It rejects logic because it is a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering any argumentation based on it to be void. It rejects the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law, and it thinks that models are data. We don't have the means to measure the temperature of Earth (not enough thermometers). This is where AGW rejects mathematics...Science is not lying, you are.
Evolution is a religion; it is not science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution may or may not be real.Evolution is real
Global Warming is NOT real. It outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.Global Warming is real
I am anti PUBLIC schools; not anti schools.Republicans are anti schools anti science and media. Anyone who might tell you the truth.
I am a fully supporter of science. It is YOU who is denying science...
I am not anti media... I am anti media propaganda...
God you suck for sucking me into this argument
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[2][3][4]Some deniers endorse the term, while others prefer the term climate change skepticism.[3]Several scientists have noted that "skepticism" is an inaccurate description for those who deny anthropogenic global warming.[5][6][7] In effect, the two terms form a continuous, overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics: both reject, to a greater or lesser extent, the scientific consensus on climate change.[8][9] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[10] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism[8][9] and pseudoscience.[11]
The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.[12][13][14] In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism.[15] The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.[8]
Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change,[16][17] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[18][19][20] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[21][22]
Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States.[23][24] From 2015 to 2017 (after having already served from 2003 to 2007), the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was chaired by oil lobbyist and climate change denier Jim Inhofe, who had previously called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people" and claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor.[25] He was succeeded in 2017 by John Barrasso, who similarly said: "The climate is constantly changing. The role human activity plays is not known."[26] Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO
2 emissions.[27] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.[19][28][29][30] More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[31] The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.[32] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[33] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[34]
Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry
So basically it's not just 100 scientists who believe global warming is real. It's research. Studies. Experiments. It's a collection of evidence that tells us no doubt men are causing global warming. Even most republicans admit it at this point.
So it's amazing to find someone like you who is still a flat earth freak.
What possible evidence can I show you that isn't already out there?
Did you bother to even look at the far left wing BS sources and failed modeling you posted up? Idiot...
Global Warming is NOT real. It outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.
No. You have no arguments. Those arguments are all fatally flawed. The science on this is settled. Go back to school.I've made separate arguments for GW denying logic, science, and mathematics. I don't waste my time making them for people who regularly insult me, though... It's not worth my time since you refuse to cool your temper enough to listen to my arguments...What argument did you make? You said global warming is fake. You provided no evidence. So I replied appropriately. You're a fucking idiot.Insult Fallacy. (Insults are not arguments)IdiotGlobal Warming is NOT science; it is religion. It rejects logic, science, and mathematics. It rejects logic because it is a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering any argumentation based on it to be void. It rejects the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law, and it thinks that models are data. We don't have the means to measure the temperature of Earth (not enough thermometers). This is where AGW rejects mathematics...Science is not lying, you are.
Evolution is a religion; it is not science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution may or may not be real.Evolution is real
Global Warming is NOT real. It outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.Global Warming is real
I am anti PUBLIC schools; not anti schools.Republicans are anti schools anti science and media. Anyone who might tell you the truth.
I am a fully supporter of science. It is YOU who is denying science...
I am not anti media... I am anti media propaganda...
Argument of the Stone Fallacy. (Dismissing an argument as absurd without counterargument is a logical fallacy, dude)
See to it.
Well, we do know that temperatures go up and down, so if that's what you're referring to when you use those terms, then yes, I agree. When people use the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change", they typically make reference to "greenhouse gases" or some sort of "greenhouse effect" as the primary driver for the supposedly increasing global temperature. That part of it is not real. The proposed theories for such a thing reject the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, as well as statistical mathematics. Logic is already rejected from the outset, as "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are circularly-defined terms. That leads to what happened above, as we are likely thinking of the terms differently since they make no reference to anything outside of themselves...Global warming is real...so is global cooling....
I'm unaware of what "global stasis" is, so I can't comment intelligently on it.so is global stasis (for short periods of time anyway)
Correct. I'd even argue that we currently don't have the capacity to accurately measure global temperature. We don't have near enough thermometers, and satellites measure light, not absolute temperature. That leads to a "chicken and egg" issue...Man made any of the above are not real. Humans don't have the capacity to have an effect on the global temperature..
Your mind is still completely closed and unwilling to hear my arguments. Feel free to look up my past posts and read my arguments made within them.No. You have no arguments. Those arguments are all fatally flawed. The science on this is settled. Go back to school.I've made separate arguments for GW denying logic, science, and mathematics. I don't waste my time making them for people who regularly insult me, though... It's not worth my time since you refuse to cool your temper enough to listen to my arguments...What argument did you make? You said global warming is fake. You provided no evidence. So I replied appropriately. You're a fucking idiot.Insult Fallacy. (Insults are not arguments)IdiotGlobal Warming is NOT science; it is religion. It rejects logic, science, and mathematics. It rejects logic because it is a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering any argumentation based on it to be void. It rejects the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law, and it thinks that models are data. We don't have the means to measure the temperature of Earth (not enough thermometers). This is where AGW rejects mathematics...
Evolution is a religion; it is not science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution may or may not be real.
Global Warming is NOT real. It outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.
I am anti PUBLIC schools; not anti schools.
I am a fully supporter of science. It is YOU who is denying science...
I am not anti media... I am anti media propaganda...
Argument of the Stone Fallacy. (Dismissing an argument as absurd without counterargument is a logical fallacy, dude)
See to it.
No. You have no arguments. Those arguments are all fatally flawed. The science on this is settled. Go back to school.I've made separate arguments for GW denying logic, science, and mathematics. I don't waste my time making them for people who regularly insult me, though... It's not worth my time since you refuse to cool your temper enough to listen to my arguments...What argument did you make? You said global warming is fake. You provided no evidence. So I replied appropriately. You're a fucking idiot.Insult Fallacy. (Insults are not arguments)IdiotGlobal Warming is NOT science; it is religion. It rejects logic, science, and mathematics. It rejects logic because it is a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering any argumentation based on it to be void. It rejects the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law, and it thinks that models are data. We don't have the means to measure the temperature of Earth (not enough thermometers). This is where AGW rejects mathematics...
Evolution is a religion; it is not science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution may or may not be real.
Global Warming is NOT real. It outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.
I am anti PUBLIC schools; not anti schools.
I am a fully supporter of science. It is YOU who is denying science...
I am not anti media... I am anti media propaganda...
Argument of the Stone Fallacy. (Dismissing an argument as absurd without counterargument is a logical fallacy, dude)
See to it.
