C-Mag wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:59 am
I disagree, and you didn't address my second point.
'Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory. '
It doesn't need to be addressed. It's like trying to argue with a rabid anti-weapon fanatic that a hand grenade isn't a weapon of mass destruction or getting them to define "assault rifle" beyond "it sounds scary". Or that the Earth isn't actually flat. Do I trust scientists or do I trust the coal and oil lobby that's been paying good money to big media talking heads to melt your brains with moronic propaganda about world conspiracies fuelled by environmentalism?
C-Mag wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:59 am
I disagree, and you didn't address my second point.
'Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory. '
It doesn't need to be addressed. It's like trying to argue with a rabid anti-weapon fanatic that a hand grenade isn't a weapon of mass destruction or getting them to define "assault rifle" beyond "it sounds scary". Or that the Earth isn't actually flat. Do I trust scientists or do I trust the coal and oil lobby that's been paying good money to big media talking heads to melt your brains with moronic propaganda about world conspiracies fuelled by environmentalism?
Another Science Hater
We don't need to prove Climate Change, but we need to change all our lives for it.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
You AGW folks know that sticking the Scientific Principles is a loser for you because the theory, is just a theory and not proven at any level that would logically force all the world governments to act on it.
AND...………...
I'm being very generous calling it anything more than a hypothesis
You do understand that scientific theories are not like your conspiracy theories don't you?
You have to show your workings and everything. You don't just get to make up a theory based on your current state of paranoia about the establishment.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Montegriffo wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:12 pm
You do understand that scientific theories are not like your conspiracy theories don't you?
You have to show your workings and everything. You don't just get to make up a theory based on your current state of paranoia about the establishment.
I have a very good understanding of the Scientific Method, that is why I'm skeptical of AGW. That is why I also said I'm being generous calling AGW a theory, when it's likely just a hypothesis.
