Merger = Global Warming

[solleks]

Pat yourself on the back ur on the right side of scifience. Yippeeee

[Tzug]

Originally Posted by Polycaster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Notice how all your sources are part of the government or made up of multiple governments. Strange how those with power are finding evidence that they need even more power. My sources were from real scientists not beholden to the government.

Also, I still haven't seen any links to evidence from your side, only arrogance and ignorance. Any objective observer would hand the debate victory to our side based upon that alone.

Alex Epstein, the author of your Forbes article, is not a scientist. He runs a for-profit think tank relating to fossil fuels. You're skeptical of anything related to the government but willing to trust a single person whose livelihood is directly related to denying climate change.

Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-...isinformation/

Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...S-D-13-00091.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../2/024024/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...26/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.)

These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real.

I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility.

[Smellybuttface]

Originally Posted by Tzug [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alex Epstein, the author of your Forbes article, is not a scientist. He runs a for-profit think tank relating to fossil fuels. You're skeptical of anything related to the government but willing to trust a single person whose livelihood is directly related to denying climate change.

Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-...isinformation/

Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...S-D-13-00091.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../2/024024/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...26/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.)

These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real.

I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility.

I bow to you sir. Climate deniers, school is in session.

[solleks]

Almost all "science" is government funded grants peer reviewed is meaningless

[solleks]

You're just appealing to authority and a giant circle jerk sandwich u don't know sheeeeeet. Prove it

[Tzug]

Originally Posted by solleks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Almost all "science" is government funded grants peer reviewed is meaningless

Originally Posted by solleks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're just appealing to authority and a giant circle jerk sandwich u don't know sheeeeeet. Prove it

You want me to prove it, but you don't believe in science, so there's literally no way for me to prove it to you. I won't waste my time. Meanwhile, please continue enjoying the many technological advancements that have developed as a result of scientific research. Must be they were right about all those other things but on this thing they're definitely full of shit. That seems likely.

Originally Posted by Tzug [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change.

That should be anthropogenic, but it's kind of a funny mistake as is.

[Canelek]

It’s the new age of anti-intellectualism; cheered on and encouraged by a president who’s sole purpose is to accrue more money and influence.

But hey, infowars and breitbart feed these fine folks with enough information to bridge the logic gaps so they can continue to believe all sorts of wacky shit.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Asteria [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And NO, forum account conspiracy theories are NOT doxxing [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice try if you thought to make that complaint.

Teppler has got people banned from the forums for less.

[AtomicFrog]

Originally Posted by solleks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Almost all "science" is government funded grants peer reviewed is meaningless

SAAAAAAWING and a miss!

[Wallicker]

Where are the Donald Trump vs Greta Thungberg memes? This thread is weak!