jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,344
- 34,500
- 2,180
his point was made and you are the fool.I'm not interested in your games. If you have a point to make, then state it directly.
What about 1860? 1760?
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.
his point was made and you are the fool.I'm not interested in your games. If you have a point to make, then state it directly.
What about 1860? 1760?
they need the bartender and high school child to sing loudly we're gonna die!!!!!!!Watching this guy work so hard to deny reality is equal parts funny and disturbing:
Note the propaganda there? The climate scientist quoted in this article did not say “we picked this as a benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point”. Here is what he actually said, word-for-word:Scientists chose 1.5C as one benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point.
See they cannot link any “list of what bad things would happen at that point” because they have no provable science of what will occur with a 1.5° changeJeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.
No it doesn't. Not even remotely. You're just raving like a kook now. I mean, even moreso than usual. Do you even understand what you parrot? Probably not.Science isn’t “arbitrary”, princess. Science - real/actual science - is precise. This literally proves that “Global Warming” is a hoax.Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.
arbitrary is not rounding up.No it doesn't. Not even remotely. You're just raving like a kook now. I mean, even moreso than usual. Do you even understand what you parrot? Probably not.Science isn’t “arbitrary”, princess. Science - real/actual science - is precise. This literally proves that “Global Warming” is a hoax.Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.
To show you understand, explain, in your own words, why scientists using round numbers like 1.5 or 2.0 to illustrate shows that global warming is a hoax. If they had used 1.6343 or 1.7601 instead, would that have proved it wasn't a hoax?
Watching you try to deny what even the scientists now admit is priceless. You’re going to ride that “Global Warming” lie to your grave. I guess your very fragile ego feels just too invested in the lie at the point to abandon it.You're just raving like a kook now.
Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.To show you understand, explain, in your own words, why scientists using round numbers like 1.5 or 2.0 to illustrate shows that global warming is a hoax.
Watching you argue “the sky isn’t blue and the sun isn’t hot” is just entertainment at this point.Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.
Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.
exceptBecause they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.
No, they didn't. Your claim there is 100% made up.
Remember, your inability to read and understand simple English only reflects badly on you.
Now, what else did your masters tell you to say today? Run and check.
Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.To show you understand, explain, in your own words, why scientists using round numbers like 1.5 or 2.0 to illustrate shows that global warming is a hoax.
Watching you argue “the sky isn’t blue and the sun isn’t hot” is just entertainment at this point.Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.
![]()
Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker' | Blaze Media
Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.What is the background?The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018...www.theblaze.com
Hahahaha! Mammaries...I know you think that pretending that reality isn't real is having some affect, but I assure you, it's not. The more you argue this, the more we get to bring to light the fact that the "Global Warming" scam was exposed.No, they didn't. Your claim there is 100% made up.Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.
Which part of "not rooted in provable science" do you not understand?Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.
I'm not going to lie...watching you seethe over and over because I continue to bend you over my knee and discipline you with facts really does bring me joy.No, they didn't. Your claim there is 100% made up.
Of course you are. After all, you keep doing it, over and over. The dude said nothing like your article claimed. You keep quoting what your conspiracy cult article claimed, instead of what the guy arctually said.I'm not going to lie...
watching you seethe over and over because I continue to bend you over my knee and discipline you with facts really does bring me joy.
Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable facts!"Koonin explains the sorry state of climate science today. What the IPCC and U.S. government tell us about climate science is usually true, but in their effort “to persuade, rather than inform,” they leave out what doesn’t fit their narrative. They tell us enough to be alarmed, not enough to educate. It is this loss of scientific integrity that is alarming, not the climate.
Much of the book is spent dispelling the myth that extreme weather events are increasing due to human-caused climate change. He relates that heat waves are not more common today than they were in 1900, tornados are not trending up, nor are droughts, hurricanes or flooding. Koonin criticizes the media for claiming that extreme weather is somehow related to human activities, when there is no evidence to support this.
Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable facts!
Mammaries: “Scientists should be listened to at all costs, no matter what”Koonin is just another denier shill who lies for money.
I could care less what you and your ilk think about anything, I posted the recommendation for the book for the benefit of lurkers, not because I give a shit what commies think. You aren't here to actually debate anything, just shill for your Commissars. And, the guy is not a 'Denier', whatever that is, he's a scientist who worked on the projects under the Obama administration, unlike you, who merely parrots what a collection of media hacks who aren't scientists tell you to.Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable facts!
What facts? Koonin is just another denier shill who lies for money.
If you'd like to discuss any of his specific claims, feel free. Pick one.
You won't, of course. You're not capable of honest discussion.
Got it. You're not even pretending you can debate the issues. You're just a parrot.I could care less what you and your ilk think about anything, I posted the recommendation for the book for the benefit of lurkers,
Yet I'm the one who just asked you to debate the issue, and you're one who refused.not because I give a shit what commies think. You aren't here to actually debate anything,
And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.