Austraila wildfire proves climate change is anythng but a hoax

Yes and no

Earlier in this thread you claimed that republicans were “more informed” than democrats. Let’s see you live up to that by reading the IPCC report on Mitigation of climate change

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

 

Why oh why do the right keep quoting crackpot sites?

Maybe because they are the only ones that have what they WANT.??

Been
Debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a hammock during a cyclone

 

How yes and no? Both involve very basic laws of physics and both have these basic laws factored in. The airplane in the design and the climate in understanding and prediction.

It was a study which clearly indicated republicans were better informed on average..

 

Since college, I have learned most about emerging technologies by reading magazines like Science, IEEE, and EDN. It has always been reliable information.

 

Shouldn't be quoting a crackpot site like USAToday ,,, I promise I won't do it again
Teen firefighter is among dozens accused of igniting fires that have ravaged Australia
John Bacon
USA TODAY
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-charged-starting-wildfires-arson/2831063001/

 

Most of us have done that. However, that does not automatically make them correct. Discussing and debating them makes them really worthwhile.

 

The only way to learn things is to try them. If you want to be wildly successful at something, you have to try it out and learn from your mistakes. You can study all you want, but until you defeat the fear if failure, you won't get anywhere.

 

Hopeless!

Cooking involves science, football involves science,.... Everything in reality involves science. Because Science is the method we use to understand reality.

Look. Never mind. Just... do me a favor. If you see somebody doing something to help avert or mitigate Global Warming.... just please stay out of their way, will you? You can be sure that they understand science better than you do.

 

I probably do more to avoid using carbon fuels than the majority of the democrats. Not for global warming, but I think cleaner renewable sources are much preferable in the long run. You have made so many ignorant comments that you should really avoid talking to anyone about science.

I took an aerodynamics course in college. it was almost pure science involving airflow and lift., thrust versus drag etc. It probably comes closer to pure science than climate because of so many assumptions and approximations involved in climate,. I completed fou semesters of meteorology at two civilian universities while in the Air Force plus several other correspondence courses I have no doubt that I know more about both subjects than you ever will.

 

That suggestion could be a problem for me, I havent seen anybody from the right or the left doing anything to avert Global Warming, other than yell and ask for my money . Donate Now!

 

Good enough! If they're asking for donations to protect the environment... and you don't want to give them any... as I said... stay out of their way. My point was that people who don't understand science are not required to understand science anymore. Just to not stand in the way of people who do.

 

Yes you have. Trump has been fighting climate change by lifting Americans out of poverty. People have money for insulation, caulking and new windows and doors Once out of poverty, they pay their own bills, so they're less wasteful.

Yes, the Trump economy has been the antidote to Climate Change.

 

Yes, when all you have is ad hom against forum rules, you best remain silent. I’m looking forward to the day you live up to your sig line enough to discuss the topic without having to resort to ad hominem attack. For now I’ll accept your concession since I’ve presented all the facts and they remain undisputed.

 

Oh God! Can you think of anything more pathetic than seeing the person who writes...

"And the most pertinent fact is my original point. Climate changers are impotent snowflakes that either aren’t serious or are inept fools."​

... whining about ad-hominems.?

BTW, yours is an ad-hominem. You even admit that that was your "original point". Mine is not an ad hominem. My point is correct: your statement saying that you are "indiferent" about Global warming clearly indicates that you believe that it's not going to affect you. And that's laughable.

And what we learned is that it had to be explained to you how a Senator.... and the Chair of the Senate Environment Committeee... could affect Climate Change legislation.

 

If you all want to fix global warming or whatever, we need to put a thermostat on the sun. Nothing else will work.

 

The problem is you are dead wrong. Snowball man had no power. You messed up by bringing him up. You still don’t realize Obama’s climate legislation failed because of lack of Democratic support, do you? You should lay blame there. Not on a dumb guy who brought a snowball to work. Blaming a fool like that supports my point. Serious people would surely be able to overcome such amateurish opposition.

Climate change will affect me. In a net positive manner. I’m still indifferent for the most part. There are so many more important issues we could be spending time and money on...

I will concede the snowflake bit was over the top. I was not clear on the qualifiers following that terminology. Saying someone isn’t serious isn’t ad hom. My position in these climate threads is just that. Changers/warmers can’t be serious because their actions are not serious.

 

So you're going to double down on your claim that a Senator ... chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment... had no power to stop Climate Change legislation.

It makes no difference if you can bring up some environmental bill that didn't have enough support. There was no lack of environmental bills during Obama's administration. So that's irrelevant.

What is significant in this discussion is that you actually don't know how the Legislative branch works.

 

While Schumer was running the Senate you could only Filibustered if he permitted it.

 

Of course I know how it works. You are unaware of how it worked in the case we are discussing.

 

Then why have I yet to meet a republican who is willing to actually READ the ipcc reports themselves?

 

The whole physics of how CO2 works seems to have passed you by



Though this one might suit better



Without CO2 we would be ‘snowball earth”

 

Schumer has never run the senate! I gave you two chances to figure that out on your own. Wake up!

On second thought.... better go back to sleep.

 

ONE person?

ONE?

You do realise there were thousands of fires across the country?




https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...2ca02aab938671&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium

. The smoke plume circled the earth

 

Probably because you have not asked all the republicans, or all the democrats for that matter. The study which clearly showed republicans better informed on current events did not address the IPCC rep;ort.

 

My bad Harry Reid same difference.,