climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[palmbeacher]

A key question historians in coming decades will have to answer: were the right-wingers who lined up behind Trump and "alternative facts" and climate denial and who attacked experts and academics and scientists: were they dumb? Or dishonest? Or a bit of both?

Ok, judging from the replies y’all dumb AF.

[Matteo V]

A key question historians in coming decades will have to answer: were the right-wingers who lined up behind Trump and "alternative facts" and climate denial and who attacked experts and academics and scientists: were they dumb? Or dishonest? Or a bit of both?

Ok, judging from the replies y’all dumb AF.

You seem angry and flustered. It also seems that you are critiquing your own comment by quoting yourself? If that's true, I don't think you really understand the image you're presenting.

But this image is fairly common across most who claimed to be environmentally conscious. To rational human beings, you appear mentally unstable.

[prop_joe]

There’s no argument about the science, so little use debating scientific facts. Recasting the issue as a matter of faith rather than reason lets you simply ignore the evidence.

What facts, have you provided any scientific facts yet? All i seem to have seen is a lot of finger pointing and noise making.

Moreover, resisting the consensus about climate change fits with other themes Maggots champion, especially disdain for “elites” (scientists and other assorted intellectuals in this case) and international cooperation.

Again just assumptions from in your head, i told you why i was skeptical of it. What's a Maggots Champion?

[prop_joe]

Brain fart... wondering if some clever nerd could come up with some kind of algorithm that contained a set of agreed upon rules with regards to debate/discussion such as 'no ad hominem's', 'no strawmans, 'provable facts only' or whatever and then somehow could apply it to this thread. Let it run through from pg1 kicking people out who fail or break the rules... i doubt anyone would be still be in at pg151 but i'd be interested to see in what order people went. Got a good idea who'd be first for the chop .

[slide]

even flysurfer , have mentioned climate change , when they talk of the sustainability of the very wide scope useability of the flysurfer soul and the differing wind/weather conditions climate change brings - i'm certainly plzd with my choice of kite for my future
so a massive bigup to flysurfer for bringing this climate issue up , they even mention greta , we all are really proud of you flysurfer

[palmbeacher]

There’s no argument about the science, so little use debating scientific facts. Recasting the issue as a matter of faith rather than reason lets you simply ignore the evidence.

What facts, have you provided any scientific facts yet? All i seem to have seen is a lot of finger pointing and noise making.

Moreover, resisting the consensus about climate change fits with other themes Maggots champion, especially disdain for “elites” (scientists and other assorted intellectuals in this case) and international cooperation.

Again just assumptions from in your head, i told you why i was skeptical of it. What's a Maggots Champion?

Scientific facts: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

If you re-read the sentence you will find that 'champion' is a verb, not a noun. But you may have missed that class if you didn't graduate high school.

[Havre]

Meaning that everything the IPCC publish (and therefore also have published) is proven scientific facts?

[palmbeacher]

Meaning that everything the IPCC publish (and therefore also have published) is proven scientific facts?

It is a peer reviewed study which involved hundreds of leading academic researchers, including Oxford University. But I am sure you have much more expertise in the area of climate change.

A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

[prop_joe]

There’s no argument about the science, so little use debating scientific facts. Recasting the issue as a matter of faith rather than reason lets you simply ignore the evidence.

What facts, have you provided any scientific facts yet? All i seem to have seen is a lot of finger pointing and noise making.

Moreover, resisting the consensus about climate change fits with other themes Maggots champion, especially disdain for “elites” (scientists and other assorted intellectuals in this case) and international cooperation.

Again just assumptions from in your head, i told you why i was skeptical of it. What's a Maggots Champion?

Scientific facts: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

If you re-read the sentence you will find that 'champion' is a verb, not a noun. But you may have missed that class if you didn't graduate high school.

My mistake, i am trying to educate myself but it's difficult when you just mock me rather than answer my question. In fact i don't think you've answered or addressed a single point iv'e made in regard to your posts. Careful mocking people over traits you can't possibly know about, you may end up making a fool of yourself

[Havre]

Meaning that everything the IPCC publish (and therefore also have published) is proven scientific facts?

It is a peer reviewed study which involved hundreds of leading academic researchers, including Oxford University. But I am sure you have much more expertise in the area of climate change.

A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

That is not answering the question.