Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy - It's more than hiring Bruce Willis

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    To be fair, I think scientists are divided on ECS(which is why the IPCC provides a probability density function and not a value), on attribution (how much warming is due to what), extreme weather attribution, and on likely consequences.
    Which basically makes you a climate skeptic. You're sleptic about anything related to global warming. Your mitigation position is the cherry on top, as it basically advocates doing nothing or almost nothing.

    Basically your position is to say "Their might be some warming up, we do not know and scientist certainly don't, and there won't be any real consequences anyway, so lets do next to nothing." The moronic like Sycophantsmith will think you're not a skeptic, as you start with admitting their might be some warming up, but then adopt the denier stance for the rest.
    Last edited by Yablo; January 11th, 2017 at 12:04 PM.
    I am not Gary Busey.


  • #32
    Quote Originally Posted by cyphersmith View Post
    The how much question is certainly a question for scientists. And they're certainly divided on that, because the how much is based on those things you mentioned.
    They aren't divided, moron. Constantly refining numbers doesn't mean the scientific community is divided. It means they are constantly working on improving the methods, models and theories. That is what scientists do. Paradigm shifts are far between.
    I am not Gary Busey.

  • Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts