quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Has this ever actually happened with him?
If so, do you ever get the impression that information has been correctly interpreted and/or retained?

I haven't seen it.

Reading this thread makes it even more obvious: Practically all that the alt left has for "debate" are their propaganda blogs, and their ever present fallacy crutches

Sadly, it makes obvious the propensity for knee-jerk defensive repetition of pet talking points, ignoring new information and analysis in favor of repeating past beliefs.

The article discusses a completely different topic than the circle-jerk critics (who still felt the need to "debate" what they're still literally ignorant about) went off to rant about.

All the while pretending others are ignorant.

Bizarre head-in-the-sand paranoia.

But it is what it is. Some folks don't learn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

The New York Times is nonstop propaganda 24/7. Thinking people see right through it the same way we see through Al Gore and his 1970's TV preacher "Repent - The End Is Near" gig.

All of the Dear Leaders of the Doom and Gloom club ride in stretch limousines and use private jets to fly around the globe to their swanky conferences that they could telecommute to. They live in vast air conditioned mansions, with heated swimming pools and armed guards. Many have more than one

Hysterical predictions were made, and they all failed to materialize. Scandals among the pseudoscientists are infamous, with data being changed and bureaucrats leading the propaganda war, while leftists refuse to acknowledge that reality when the proof is in black and white in their faces

The cultish scam is about promoting the new world order, with the haves getting it all and the have nots getting screwed out of their money, their jobs, their votes, and their affordable energy (and everything that affordable energy provides).

Useful idiots like you are always the last to finally figure it out, too - though it is all very simple and obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

not the least bit tempted to read the article because, given its source and the person who posted it, im pretty confident the premise is "us right/you wrong"

quote:

what that does is it takes the "fingers in the ears and going lalalalalalala" position and turns it right on its head. the left are the ones doing that.

quote:

that brings to mind one of my favorite phrases when it comes to observing the behaviors and attitudes of lefties: smug pompous asses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

why dont you try a few facts for a change?
we have had increased solar iiradiance to the tune of .05% per decade which means we get a corresonding increase in temperature mans role is insignificant as the planet eco system self adjusts (regulates) for carbon dioxide et al all by itself. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/scientists-propose-mechanism-to-describe-solar-eruptions-of-all-sizes

Where in that article does it say that the sun is causing climate change?
If you're so keen on bringing facts into the discussion, you should probably be sure that they actually prove the point you're trying to make.

sorry it requires compex inductive reasoning skills, if the heater gets hotter so does what its heating

quote:

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.