Happy to discuss the reproductive habits of the tooth fairy, if you like. It will be on the same level as the other “debate” itt.

Has investigative discussion uncovered many, of any, of those physicists?

"Ambiguity" was an inaccurate word.

But why wouldn't you answer my question?

The fact is that there are two two totally different categories of anti climaters.

The second category doesn't argue with the idea that humans are causing it but rather argue that the benefits of changing it aren't worth the cost. Why, wouldn't you weigh in on that?

Because I wasn’t raised by wolves.

You started this thread with an “innocent” question; “oh jeeze, doh de doh, I wish tooth could have stayed around long enough to provide his obviously super duper strong evidence for the 99.999% of climate scientists who way deep down in their souls don’t believe climate science. I’m just asking questions. Doh de doh”

Followed by a bunch of youtooobz and pictures of a mountain. Once WN posted the poll data obliterating your initial “question” you pivoted to “but guys what about the costs of dealing with the climate change I now super duper believe in”

You are not debating in good faith.

Add to that the complete lack of understanding in the most basic aspects of the science and it’s crystal clear any debate would be wholly fruitless.

I wouldn’t ask you to debate me on Fermat’s Theorem, having never been educated in complex math, armed solely with a youtooobz video by a guy who promises he has cracked the problem and the answer is ham sandwich.

I know where the edges of my knowledge lie and I’m humble enough to accept them. I also don’t pretend to “just ask questions” instead of having the balls to simply state my actual opinion.

toothsayer said 50pct not 99pct. I have no opinion on the subject so I was asking someone who is probably an expert namely you
why you have these weird ideas I don't know.

toothsayer said 50pct not 99pct. I have no opinion on the subject so I was asking someone who is probably an expert namely you
why you have these weird ideas I don't know.

Sorry for just asking a question but what's your opinion of the Green New Deal?

Having no opinion is not a sign of impartiality. It’s intellectual cowardice.

A complete red herring. It failed to pass in the senate weeks ago. Care to discuss any other long dead legislation?

It’s nothing more than a club for the lunatic right to beat there low IQ constituents with who are simply too stupid to know it’s not under consideration in either branch.

Single-payer is also a dead legislation right now, that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. The idea behind the Green New Deal is a real one - that any attempt to solve climate change should be paired with more spending on social programs. Look at France right now: they've had riots for months that were sparked by in part by populist unrest against an increase in the diesel tax.

Something like the Green New Deal is obviously needed but will never pass in the US because your insane nation still think there is a “debate” to be had.

The existence of this very thread is why it won’t happen.

You don't know this. If you really think the climate change "debate" is what is holding up legislation from passing rather than people not wanting to pay higher taxes, I think you're wrong.

Lol.

Or technology and market forces will fix the problem.

You know... Like whatever...

We have a carbon tax in Canada.

That’s not how I see our system as functioning. For example, it wasn’t that long ago we were mostly just talking about lowering health insurance premiums. Now we’re talking about universal healthcare.

More accurately the thread where scientific disagreement on models and frameworks for gravity gets misunderstood, blown out of proportion and used to claim that gravity is fake.

TS lied to you and you’re not bright enough to notice it.

I don't plan on participating much in this thread but I do have a question or two:

Is global warming obvious at this point to the people who are strong proponents of mmgw regardless of whatever the scientists say? I.e., should the California fires, melting glaciers, extreme weather events, hurricanes, etc, be enough that even a lay person should be able to recognize that the climate is changing? Or are those things within the bounds of 'normal variance' and without the scientific consensus we would have no reason to think that global warming is occurring?

If it isn't discernable that mmgw is occurring then how much harm is someone like AOC doing to the cause when she says the planet is going to die in 12 years? (Or is it 11 now?).

In terms of what I can directly observe, no. Life seems much the same to me as it was 20 years ago. Living in Scotland I don't see any tornadoes, tsunamis or anything else like that. If I lived in a different part of the world my answer may be different.

I would assume that anyone that went back through ice core samples and analysed the data effectively would be able to come to the same conclusions as the scientists but, you would need to be at Master's/PhD level to do that correctly. The average layperson hasn't got a hope in hell of doing this. My undergrad and Master's degrees are in biology and ecology. That's why my posts in this thread have been about generic scientific concepts that anyone with a degree in any scientific discipline would be able to make rather than the specifics of climate change. It would be completely inappropriate for me to give an opinion on the mechanisms that cause climate change and whether or not what we currently see could be explained by variance in climatic patterns as I do not have the necessary training.

I'm not familiar with what AOC has said so I'll take your word for it on the 12-year prediction and assume that you mean it literally. Any sort of exaggerated prediction is counterproductive. People say 'you got this wrong, therefore, everything about this scientific discipline is wrong'. You see creationists pull this all the time whenever a new discovery changes the way we think about evolution, pushes back the date our ancestors left Africa and so on. These people aren't arguing in good faith so you're never going to convince them with evidence. However, it's important to minimise the ammunition that they have as they can still influence other people that aren't invested into either side.

The concept isn't that hard to explain. It's the same concept that every college freshman hanging their head by the toilet bowl after a night of drinking understands too late. If you drink until you realize you shouldn't be drinking, then you're already f*cked.

1st bolded:

why...
the ****...
would you do that?

AOC does not say the planet will die in 12 years. You’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. -AOC


2nd bolded:
They are going to do that anyway. They are not going to stop arguing in bad-faith simply because there is no hyperbole to attack.

Here is the quote so people don't think I'm just making things up. Whether you want to take her literally or not is up to you.
And my question was whether she is doing more harm than good with rhetoric like that. Whether she meant it literally or whether people take it literally is irrelevant to what I was asking, although I do think that there are people who think that.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...e-dont-address

Why don't we be accurate and just go by what she says about it?

You’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. -AOC

Ok. But that still doesn't address my question.

But if we're going to get into the nitty gritty of what she did mean, is her point then that if we don't do anything then in 12 years we will reach the point of no return?
And do you think she could have worded that better?